NATURAL RESOURCES SYSTEMS PROGRAMME

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

VOLUME 1Main Report and Annex A

R 7304

Zimbabwe: Micro-catchment Management and Common Property Resources

Professor Bruce Campbell

Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe

Semi Arid Production System 4 October 2002

DateNRSP Production System

Organisation

Project Leader

Project Title

DFID Project Number

ii

MICRO-CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AND COMMONPROPERTY RESOURCES IN ZIMBABWE:

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

Mandondo, A., Frost, P., Campbell, B. & Mutamba, M.

Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe

2002

iii

Overview of report

Volume 1 – Main report and scientific annex

Main reportAnnex A - Scientific Annex

Frost, P.G.H., Campbell, B., Mutamba, M., Lovell, C.J., Mandondo, A., Cain, J., Kozanayi,W. and Luckert, M. 2002. Can rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions be improved throughbetter management of natural resources in catchments?

Annex J – Project Inventory

Volume 2 – Institutional, biophysical and integrative aspects

Annex BMandondo, A., Campbell, B., Luckert, M., Nemarundwe, N., de Jong, W. and Kozanayi,W. 2001. Transacting institutional change in contexts of complexity: experiences fromChivi District in Zimbabwe

Annex CNemarundwe, N. 2001. Organisations for local woodland management: the case of Romwecatchment in Southern Zimbabwe

Annex DNemarundwe, N. 2002. Formal and informal decision-making platforms: Women’s role innatural resource management institutions in Southern Zimbabwe.

Annex ELovell, C.J., Mugabe, F.T., Moriarty, P.B., Hodnett, M. and Batchelor, C.H. 2001. When iscatchment management beneficial? A biophysical case study in a semi-arid crystallinebasement area.

Annex FMugabe, F.T., Hodnett, M. and Senzanje, A. 2001. Comparative hydrological behaviour oftwo contrasting catchments in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe

Annex GCain, J., Moriarty, P.B. and Lynam, T. 2001. Designing integrated models for participatoryformulation of water management strategies.

Volume 3 - Livelihood aspects

Annex HCampbell, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. 2002.Household Livelihoods in Semi-arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Bogor: Center forInternational Forestry Research. [Replaced by a published book with this title andauthorship]

Annex ISullivan, C.S., Mutamba, M. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. Water use and livelihood security: Astudy of rural households in Southern Zimbabwe.

iv

Relationship of annexes to logframe milestones

Institutional aspects

An overview institutional paper was called for – this is Mandondo et al. (Annex B). Two additionalpapers have been produced, not originally part of the milestones (Annex C, Annex D).

Biophysical aspects

This called for a review of technical options and finalisation of the modelling approaches. This isLovell et al. (Annex E). One additional paper was produced for biophysical aspects (Annex F).

Livelihood aspects

This required two papers, one of water-livelihood aspects (Annex I) and one on broad livelihoodaspects (Annex H). Given the large volumes of data on livelihoods the latter paper became a book,with various papers now in preparation.

Integrated aspects

An integrated paper was also mentioned as a milestone (cross-cutting across all of the outputs).This is Annex A. In addition we have a paper on integrated modelling (Annex G).

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS – MAIN REPORT

Overview of report ............................................................................................................................ iiiRelationship of annexes to logframe milestones............................................................................... ivList of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................... vi1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 12. Background ............................................................................................................................... 23. Project purpose .......................................................................................................................... 34. Outputs ...................................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Institutional outputs .......................................................................................................... 34.2 Biophysical outputs........................................................................................................... 84.3 Livelihood outputs .......................................................................................................... 11

5 Research Activities .................................................................................................................. 136 Contribution of outputs............................................................................................................ 16

6.1 Output 1 .......................................................................................................................... 166.2 Output 2 .......................................................................................................................... 176.3 Output 3 .......................................................................................................................... 196.4 Dissemination and uptake............................................................................................... 20

7 Publications and other communication materials .................................................................... 217.1 Books and book chapters ................................................................................................ 217.2 Journal articles ................................................................................................................ 227.3 Institutional Report Series .............................................................................................. 227.4 Symposium, conference and workshop papers and posters (not listed elsewhere)......... 237.5 Newsletter articles........................................................................................................... 237.6 Academic theses ............................................................................................................. 237.7 Extension-oriented leaflets, brochures, posters & policy briefs ..................................... 237.8 Manuals and guidelines .................................................................................................. 247.9 Media presentations ........................................................................................................ 247.10 Reports and data records................................................................................................. 25

8 References cited in the report .................................................................................................. 279 Project logframe ...................................................................................................................... 3110 Keywords................................................................................................................................. 3511 Annexes ................................................................................................................................... 35

vi

List of Abbreviations

ACRU Agricultural Catchments Research Unit hydrological modelAGRITEX Agricultural Technical and Extension ServicesAIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeASQ African Studies Quarterly (Journal)BN Bayesian networkCPR Common Property Resource (also Common Pool Resource)DA District AdministrationDEAP District Environment Action ProgrammeDR&SS Department of Research and Specialist ServicesETFN European Tropical Forestry NetworkGIS Geographical Information SystemsITDG Intermediate Technology Development GroupPAR Participatory Action ResearchPOLEX Forest Policy Experts electronic list servePRA Participatory Rural AppraisalRDC Rural District CouncilRDCCBP Rural District Council Capacity Building ProgrammeMODFLOW Modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow modelNGO Non Governmental OrganisationNR Natural ResourceNRM Natural Resource ManagementVIDCO Village Development CommitteeWADCO Ward Development CommitteeWRM World Rainforest MovementWRMS Water Resource Management Strategy

1. Executive Summary

A three-year project was undertaken in two micro-catchments in Southern Zimbabwe to develop,validate and promote new approaches to natural resource management that could benefit the poorin semi-arid areas. The project explored the scope for integrated management of livelihood assetsand common-pool resources to alleviate poverty. Livelihoods were generally based oncombinations of dryland cropping (the mainstay of most livelihoods), irrigated gardening,woodland-based activities, local wage labour and remittances. More than 70-90% of householdsfell below the poverty line, depending on the poverty measure used. In the few cases wherehouseholds escaped poverty this was usually based on off-farm income, often involving migrationof family members. The institutional setting comprised complex rights of access and use centred onnorms and taboos. Constraints on resource management by the community included rent capture bythe elite and numerous cases of failure of local organisations. Hydrological modelling indicatedthat physical catchment management makes little impact on water resources. Evaporation andtranspiration account for most groundwater recession; human abstraction has minor impact.

Through investigating livelihood changes and integrated modelling we concluded that rainfall(main determinant of crop production) and macro-economic state (influencing, e.g., the remittancesused to buy crop inputs) dominate the system. Human impacts through management appearsecondary. We estimated cash income increases of 40% or more between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ macro-economies, while local interventions caused increases of less than 10%.

Institutional innovations initiated included incorporating common pool resource systems into theofficial regulatory framework, and enhancing local management capacity through training fortransformation and process facilitation. While institutional interventions impact the entirelivelihood system, results from the integrated modelling suggest that these interventions bythemselves only improve cash income by 8%. But the impacts of soil and water conservationmeasures on dryland production, identified and promoted during the project, are even more limited.Similarly low impacts are apparent from other local interventions. Expanding irrigated gardens inboth catchments, as promoted through action research, is technically sound, especially if irrigationrelies on an opportunistic strategy that makes maximum use of water when available. The impacton poverty is limited to strengthening the safety net, however. For instance, if markets could besecured for crops produced by expanding the area of irrigated gardens by the technically feasible 7-8 times, it would only reduce the number of households below the food poverty line from 71% to62%. Institutional failures, labour scarcity and the lack of markets are over-riding constraints toexpanding irrigation. Interventions focusing on labour-saving devices and technologies are worthpursuing, but by themselves will only make a small impact on poverty. Wealthier households ownmost of the cattle, so interventions to improve cattle production would have little impact on poorerhouseholds. Woodlands are an important source of security during times of stress but, currently,over-harvesting and the low value of most products means that they have limited poverty-reductionpotential. Loans from the micro-credit scheme, facilitated by action research, served similarpurposes to remittances, and were used mainly to buy crop inputs. The viability of the creditscheme was severely constrained by the high and uninsured risk created by climate variability.

The limited successes, in terms of marked reduction in poverty, achieved with the options we testedand promoted on this project indicate that, by themselves, single interventions are unlikely toreduce poverty substantially. A more integrated, sustained and multi-level set of interventions andsupport is required. We conclude that a primary objective in development will be to empower localpeople. For technical interventions all sectors will need to be considered, including considering off-farm options and migration. While research should continue to try and identify improvedtechnologies these should be based on detailed understanding of current livelihoods andconstraints, and set within the framework of empowering approaches where farmers are offeredchoices of technology, access to them, information, experience, and enabling economic andinstitutional environments. It has to be recognised that large-scale poverty alleviation based onlocal interventions in these semi-arid areas remote from markets is exceptionally difficult.

2

2. Background

The goal to which this project contributed was to develop and promote appropriate catchmentmanagement strategies in semi-arid environments. To achieve this we need to understand thechallenges and constraints that rural households face in living in semi-arid areas. Foremost amongthese are the often marginal environmental conditions for many forms of agriculture, created by lowand erratic rainfall, frequent droughts and generally poor soils (Frost and Mandondo, 1999;Mortimer, 1998; Scoones et al., 1996). Surface and groundwater supplies are often poorlydeveloped, unreliable or contaminated by livestock. Access to good-quality agricultural land isusually limited, sometimes by high population densities but mostly by the alienation of the betterfarming land for large-scale commercial agriculture. Food shortages are chronic and widespread.For instance, almost 54 % of the population in the districts of Chiredzi, Beitbridge, and Chivi insouthern Zimbabwe requested food aid each year during the period 1982-1993 (Frost and Mandondo,1999).

The risk and uncertainty associated with semi-arid regions, in particular the recurrence of drought andthe frequency of crop failure causes farmers to adopt risk-averse strategies (Frost and Mandondo,1999; Mortimer, 1998; Scoones et al., 1996). Such strategies, placed in the context of high livestockand human populations, encourage heavy dependence on and use of the environment. Environmentalproblems include deforestation, overgrazing of rangelands and increased soil erosion, though there ismuch debate as to the severity, causes and feedback to livelihoods (Bradley and Dewees, 1993;Campbell et al., 1997; Mortimer, 1998; Scoones et al., 1996; Timberlake et al., 1993; Whitlow,1980; Whitlow and Campbell, 1989).

Whereas agricultural production is constrained primarily by the low potential of much of the land, it isalso affected adversely by a range of socio-economic factors (Frost and Mandondo, 1999). Over time,the peasant sector has been weakened by the downstream effects of the communal tenure system underconditions of high population growth, including lack of collateral, sub-division into smaller holdings,low productivity and declining surpluses, and very low propensities to save and invest (Phimister,1988). It is almost impossible for farmers to secure the credit and loans needed to purchaseagricultural inputs. Insurance against crop failure is unknown. Markets are under-developed andoften difficult to access consistently because of long distances, high cost of transport, and asometimes poorly developed and maintained infrastructure. Access to appropriate extension adviceis minimal.

Many people, mostly men, are attracted by paid employment outside the rural areas, leaving womenwith the burden of production. Labour shortages are being further compounded by the rising numberof deaths and illness as a result of HIV/AIDS (World Bank, 1996). The contribution to householdeconomies of income derived from wage labour, returned through remittances, may be declining, dueto stagnating and declining economies in the region (World Bank, 1996; Addison, 1996).Livelihoods are also vulnerable to economic policy shifts, particularly economic reform programmeswhose pressures reinforce dependence by the poor on the environment, often causing further rapiddeterioration in its quality (Chipika and Kowero, 2000).

Rural communities depend on a wide range of natural products to supplement their livelihoods,most of them derived from the commons (Bradley and Dewees, 1993; Standa-Gunda and Braedt,2000). These include fuelwood, construction materials, fibre, wild fruits, medicines, fodder forlivestock, and inputs to agricultural fields (Bradley and Dewees, 1993). Most of these resources areobtained from the commons and their management requires collective action. The question of whatproprietary rights a community has over resources of an area is central to the issue of managingcommon pool resources. Over time, central governments in most countries, including Zimbabwe,have assumed responsibility for managing natural resources and regulating their use. In so doing,the rights and responsibilities of local people over these resources have been diminished. But inmany cases, for logistic or other reasons, governments have been unable to exercise sustainedcontrol over who uses resources and how.

3

Whereas local communities might be considered to be the obvious appropriate entities for naturalresource management (Murphree, 1991), there is a lack of clarity of what the term 'community'really means (Li, 1996). Within a community there is a diversity of groups with different interestsand concerns, and overlapping but not wholly concordant memberships and jurisdictions.Preliminary insights from applied social science research conducted around productive water pointsin south-eastern Zimbabwe showed that there are both multiple-users and multiple interestsincluding project members, non-members, and seasonal and other users (Waughray et al., 1997).This diversity, together with other constraints outlined earlier, pose significant challenges to thosetrying to devise strategies to transact and sustain positive change in such areas.

Although most of these constraints operate in concert, availability of water is widely believed torepresent the bottom line for rural livelihoods in arid and semi-arid regions (Annex I). Criticalwater problems in such regions occur at the local level in small catchments heavily populated bysubsistence farmers and their livestock, but there is shortage of data from such catchments(Dubrueil, 1986). Pioneering studies on groundwater development in catchment settings in south-east Zimbabwe had suggested that community management of productive water points couldsignificantly improve livelihoods in semi-arid production systems (Waughray et al., 1997).Participants to the inception workshop of this project, including farmers from the targetcommunities, noted the increasing realisation in the natural resource management field that majorconstraints on the productivity of the natural resource base may not be resolvable at the level of thesingle farm, or a single resource (Mandondo, 1998). Cognisance was therefore taken of the need tobuild up thinking about the system dimensions at household, community and regional scale. Therewas broad agreement that the catchment appeared a logical physical unit in which to try to tacklebiophysical and institutional constraints together. Thus, further development of the benefits ofproductive water points needed to consider the broader biophysical and social contexts of thecatchments in which they are located. Hence, the goal of the project was to identify, test and promoteappropriate catchment management strategies.

3. Project purpose

The purpose of this project was to develop, validate and promote new approaches to naturalresource management that benefit the poor in semi-arid micro-catchment settings. The projectenvisaged attaining the purpose through three outputs. Firstly, the project aimed to criticallyappraise existing institutional arrangements to manage CPR, so as to identify and promoteapproaches to enhancing community capacity to manage CPRs. Secondly, the project aimed tounderstand key biophysical linkages amongst components of micro-catchments, so as to identifyand promote options for more efficient and extensive use of water resources. Lastly, the projectaimed to identify options for markedly improving livelihoods in these micro-catchments.

Thus, the project was not only about generating knowledge and techniques, but also about seekingto transact and sustain positive change on the basis of the new ideas and skills. On the basis of theproject’s outputs, changes in knowledge and capacity were sought in several areas includingexisting institutional arrangements and in people’s capacity to manage CPRs; biophysical linkagesamongst components of the micro-catchments; options for promoting more effective use of water;and other options for the improvement of livelihoods.

4. Outputs4.1 Institutional outputs

Tenure surveys show a complex maze of property rights that confounds the simple characterisationof communal areas as 'common property' or 'open access' systems. Legally all communal land isvested in the state, which has decentralised the administration of such land to the Rural DistrictCouncils (RDCs). But at the most practical level, residents in Romwe and Mutangi enjoy'traditional' freehold rights over residential and arable units, together with usufructory rights toresources in surrounding woodland, grazing, riverine and other 'commons'. In depth analyses show

4

that the property rights encompass a wide variety of resources including exotics, indigenous fruitspecies, other indigenous plant resources, animals and water. How these rights are exercised variesacross land classes such as household plots, community woodlands, riverine areas and sacred areas.Their characteristics include comprehensiveness, exclusiveness, designation of use and users,duration, allotment type and size, transferability, fees, operational requirements and control (AnnexB).

Local resource management units are often defined on the basis of social or administrativeboundaries. The findings of this project show the existence of many such units at a range of scales,all of them variously associated with resource management and use at the local level, and whoseboundaries do not match (Figures 1 and 2). Furthermore, the boundaries of each of the units do notmatch the resource-use boundaries. Incongruities in social, political and use boundaries are furtherreinforced by the fluid and amorphous nature of memberships across some of the units, to theextent that some people reside in one village, and consider themselves to be under the jurisdictionof a leader in another village, whilst 'owning' land and using resources from yet another village(Box 1).

Catchments are also often seen as the logical physical units in which to tackle social andbiophysical constraints to livelihoods in semi-arid and other settings together (cf. Mandondo,1998), but our institutional surveys indicate the difficulty of using physical boundaries as the unitsof management. On the basis of preliminary surveys the project made a distinction between thephysical catchment as defined in physiographic and hydrological terms and the social catchment,i.e., area lying beyond the physical catchment, but with people who are variously associated withresource use and management within the physical catchment.

Box 1The fluid and amorphous nature of membership within villages: cases from Romwe (Mabhachi

and Kozanayi, 2001)

Mr I. Dobhani lives in the Matenhese village of the Romwe area and has his fields inSihambe and Matenhese villages, but considers himself to be under the jurisdiction ofvillage head Dobhani.

Mr. B. Mpofu resides in Tamwa village in Romwe but has his fields and a well inSihambe village. Mr Mpofu took over the fields and the well from his estranged wife,who inherited them from her deceased relative

One Mhlanga household living in Tamwa village of Romwe has its fields in Sihambevillage. The head of this household inherited the fields from his father. The father ofthe household head used to farm on this land in the 1950s. Although he has beendisplaced due to the reorganisation associated with colonial land alienation he stillconsiders the fields to be part of an estate to be inherited within the lineage.

Mr Virima lives in the Mutangi village. Headman Madamba claims that Mr Virimafalls under his jurisdiction for reasons that are not disclosed.

On the face of it, the popular notion of local natural resource management often gives theimpression that there are clear bodies of actors and rules to enable such management (Campbell etal., 2001). The reality is more complex. Findings from the project show that many rules, at variouslevels, concern themselves with local resource management. At the broad level there are codifiedrules, mainly in the form of legislation, but these have to operate together with district-level rules(or by-laws), as well as grassroots controls. Unlike district and national-level rules, which areclearly codified and explicit, local controls consist of explicit rules as well as implicit taboos,norms and 'rules of the heart', which are steeped in subtle and complex processes (Mandondo,

5

2001). The multiple rule systems often do not accord with each other, partly because of theirdifferent sources of legitimacy (including the state, devolved units of the state, and customaryauthorities) as well as their reliance on different and often contradicting enforcement structures andprocedures.

Figure 1. The villages in the Romwe social catchment, showing how members from differentvillages use the specified water resources in the three villages centred on the Romwe physical

catchment (most of Dobhani and Sihambe, and a small portion of Tamwa). The villages belong totwo different Wards.

6

Figure 2. The villages in the Romwe social catchment, showing how members from differentvillages use woodland resources from a mountain (Mapande hills) in Dobhani village in the

physical catchment.

7

In general, our findings suggest that local rules and leadership systems are perceived as being morelegitimate but these are largely marginalised within the broader national governance framework.Most of the state and district level laws are imposed on local settings from above, but such laws arelargely ineffectual because neither the state nor the districts have the capacity or resources toenforce such laws (Mandondo, 2000). Whereas the state and RDC rules do not appear to work atall, local rules, in so far as they are part of the moral fabric of communities, are followed to someextent.

There was no conclusive evidence to suggest that traditional leaders were necessarily always betterthan elected leaders of VIDCOs, WADCOs and other committees, or vice versa (Annex A; AnnexC). Some traditional leaders were at the centre of illegal land allocation rackets, sometimesdepriving less privileged in-migrant clans in adjacent villages of vital land (Annex B). In Romwe,an elite clan tacitly backed one of its members in a racket involving preferential allocation of fundsfrom the micro-credit facility to himself and his clan (Mutamba et al., 2000). Among other things,elected leaders in committees and elsewhere were often seen to be clinging to power, subvertingconstitutions, failing to report back and not being accountable (Gumbo and Hwindizi, 2000).

Although women are normally seldom represented in either traditional or formal organisations,they use a variety of informal institutions and avenues to exert their influence (Annex D). Theinstance of female-headed and female-managed households at both sites is high, however, andwomen are increasingly playing a more prominent and public role, including membership ofvarious committees. Both the project and its predecessor, as well as CARE, have encouraged thistrend. The livelihood analysis indicates an upsurge of trading activities by women, often involvingtemporary migration to trading locations.

Studies on CPR systems often implicitly portray two extremes, one emphasising harmony, theother accentuating conflicts, among different interest groups. Our findings show both mutual andcontentious resource-use relationships within and across villages. For instance, water point studiescentred on private wells in Romwe show how lateral bonds at community level define complexnetworks of access to private wells (Fig. 3). The wells are shared with relatives, neighbours, churchcolleagues and friends, so that eventually everyone in the village has access to almost any wellwithin reach. In Mutangi people from villages lacking adequate land and grazing resources oftenshare these with neighbouring villages (Nemarundwe and Kozanayi, 2002; Annex B). Conflicts inaccessing and using resources, as well as those over the extent of jurisdictions, were also evident,however. In some instances people take active steps to organise themselves for collective actionsand outcomes, but such organisation often entails high transaction costs (Annex B). But peopleoften devise and implement 'soft' and flexible arrangements that provide a hedge against hightransaction costs (Annex B).

Two entry-points to enhancing community capacity to manage CPRs were identified on the basis ofthe above evaluations – addressing the mismatch between district and local level rule systems(Campbell et al., 2000; 2001), and enhancing accountability, leadership skills and the knowledgebase of the communities through a set of tools including training, exposure visits and sociallearning approaches (Kozanayi, 1999; Gumbo and Hwindizi, 2000; Nemarundwe, 2002; Annex A).The initiative that involved transacting changes in district-local governance through dialoguebetween district officials and local communities resulted in the crafting of a radically different andmore democratic vision of natural resource governance, some of whose aspects the RDC hasstarted to implement. Implementation of the vision needs to be supported by research on best waysforward, including whether to do it in a comprehensive manner or incrementally in a piecemealfashion. The range of resources required and the sites to be covered also need further investigation(Campbell et al., 2000).

8

Figure 3. Rights to use water the private wells of Mr Tamwa and Mr Siwawa in Romwe, showinghow social networks allow access to supposedly private resources.

4.2 Biophysical outputs

The main driver of various aspects of water balance throughout catchments in Southern Africa isthe occurrence of long-term cycles of above-average rainfall (roughly 9 years) alternating withones of below-average (also about 9 years duration). This means that most catchments in the areafluctuate between semi-arid and semi-humid. The implications for natural resource managementare enormous. Related fluctuations can be expected in grain yield, vegetation cover, erosion andsiltation. Modelling studies on catchment hydrology in Romwe showed that rainfall is the greatestdeterminant of natural resource status, with long-term trends in groundwater reflecting thecumulative variation in rainfall over time (Butterworth et al., 1999). The main cause of water pointfailure in the region is natural recession associated with extended dry periods, with human impactthrough present groundwater abstraction being trivial compared to the natural discharge ofgroundwater (Table 1). Human impact through changes in land use in the catchment is ofsecondary importance (Butterworth et al., 1999).

Subsequent hydrological modelling results show the effects of catchment management ongroundwater resources within a typical semi-arid micro-catchments setting (Table 2). The resultsconfirm that large annual variations in groundwater level reflect values of recession that followhigh values of recharge. This recession is principally due to evapotranspiration from the aquiferrather than deep percolation or lateral flow. Our findings show that the magnitude of thegroundwater resources under present landuse varies by a factor of 8, from as low as 44 ML instorage at the end of a dry cycle to a high of 350 ML in storage during wetter cycles (Annex E).Runoff control as a management option produces little net gain in ground water as measured at theend of each dry season – if there are any trees or deep-rooted vegetation on the aquifer theseconsume most of the groundwater. They consume even more when groundwater recharge isincreased through runoff control. This is because water availability, not evaporative demand, setsthe limit to the amount of water used by the vegetation.

9

Table 1. The water balance of Romwe catchment1 under present management, calculated for threesuccessive years at the return to a wetter period (hydrological year 1 July to 30 June) (Annex D)

Runoff(mm)

Recharge(mm)

Change inground

waterstorage

(mm)

Groundwater

recession(mm)

Humanabstraction

(mm)

Balance (actualevaporation +change in soil

moisture + otherlosses) (mm)

1994/95 Rainfall = 738 mmRed clay soil 9 51 -19 70 1 677Grey duplex soil 48 0 -19 19 0 690Woodland hills 0 na2 na na 0 738Total catchment 4 38 -34 72 1 6951995/96 Rainfall = 990 mmRed clay soil 46 308 +58 250 1 635Grey duplex soil 203 138 +46 92 0 649Woodland hills 81 na na na 0 873Total catchment 93 262 +100 162 1 6341996/97 Rainfall = 937 mmRed clay soil 64 281 +50 231 1 591Grey duplex soil 335 50 +24 26 0 552Woodland hills 98 na na na 0 839Total catchment 84 296 +62 234 1 556

1 The catchment comprises 84 ha red clay, 85 ha grey duplex, and 255 ha miombo woodland on hills. Maximum values ofrecharge are shown, calculated as rainfall minus Penman potential evaporation and run-off measured during the annualperiods of ground water rise, and assuming no lateral flow or contribution to soil moisture storage. Average values ofSy of 0.034, 0.022 and 0.045 for pyroxene and leucocratic gneisses (red clay and grey duplex) and whole catchment,respectively were inferred from these maximum values of recharge and corresponding ground water rise measuredacross a network of piezometers. Change in ground water storage is annual change in ground water level multiplied byspecific yield. Recession is the difference between recharge and change in ground water storage. Human use at 2.8 Mlis equivalent to only 0.6 mm across the catchment (Sullivan et al., 2001; Annex I).

2 na = not available (because of the elevation and geological structure of the hills, their groundwater store is likely to beminimal)

Table 2. Cumulative volumes of water (Ml) over 25 years under three management scenariosRomwe-type catchment1973-1998

Recharge Aquiferstorage

Evapo-transpiration

Saturation-excess runoff

Present land use: trees, dryland crops and grass,no runoff control 2311 -122 2131 302Trees, dryland crops and grass, enhancedrecharge through runoff control 3238 -112 3135 215No trees on aquifer, only dryland crops andgrass, no runoff control 2861 11 2539 311

When the removal of the remaining woody vegetation from the aquifer is modelled as amanagement option, groundwater levels in the entire aquifer system are raised by about 80 mm yr-1

in drier periods and 400 mm yr-1 in wetter periods compared to the present land cover withscattered trees. Evapotranspiration from the aquifer remains important in both scenarios, however,as the increased groundwater water levels under the no-vegetation scenario are offset throughincreased evapotranspiration by shallow-rooted crops and grassy vegetation and through seepage.Excess runoff from the aquifer only occurs when it is saturated. It is relatively low and largelyunaffected by management, mainly because of the overriding importance of evapotranspirationunder all scenarios.

In modelling catchment management in relation to the intensity of groundwater development,Lovell et al. (2001a; Annex E) found that catchment management is most beneficial under high

10

levels of water development (and abstraction). This applied to both wet and dry years, but more sofor the latter. In both scenarios, water use was below the potential maximum abstraction rate of 150ML yr-1. When this high abstraction rate is achieved some wells may mail fail even if there isabundant water catchment-wide due to high rainfall. Such failures signify localised drawdown ofthe water table around wells that are poorly sited, for example in areas of poor permeability,sections of basement rock devoid of water-holding barriers or without natural groundwater dams.Model results also show that the negative effects of localised aquifer drawdown outweigh thepositive effects of improved catchment management, and that the efficacy of catchmentmanagement in the face of localised aquifer drawdown is even less in drought years. High rechargemay sustain high abstraction from wells and evapotranspiration by plants, but the benefits areshort-lived if there is little carry-over from year to year, especially if there are high levels ofgroundwater development. The level of groundwater development only decreases the saturation-excess runoff in the scenario where there are no trees on the aquifer. Nevertheless, the reduction inrunoff is slight compared to that which is potentially lost from the catchment throughevapotranspiration (Table 3).

Table 3. The effects of management and ground water development on the aquifer water balance(Ml year-1)

No development Low development High developmentRecharge Storage Et Wells Runoff Storage Et Wells Runoff Storage Et Wells RunoffPresent land use1981 131 13 117 0 1 6 115 10 0 -17 94 54 01982 74 -13 86 0 1 -15 79 10 0 -6 56 23 11983 7 -25 32 0 0 -22 25 4 0 -12 19 0.04 01984 39 1 38 0 0 1 33 5 0 0 30 9 01985 215 53 158 0 4 52 150 10 3 25 123 62 51986 17 -42 57 0 2 -44 50 10 1 -17 32 0.12 2Total 483 -13 488 0 8 -22 452 49 4 -27 354 148 8

Enhanced recharge through runoff control1981 185 18 164 0 3 11 162 10 2 -26 135 75 11982 104 -18 119 0 3 -20 112 10 2 -7 75 33 31983 11 -34 45 0 0 -34 38 7 0 -15 25 0 11984 56 3 53 0 0 3 46 7 0 2 40 14 01985 300 70 215 0 15 70 207 10 13 28 172 87 131986 24 -58 80 0 2 -58 71 10 1 -22 40 3 3Total 680 -19 676 0 23 -28 636 54 18 -40 487 212 21

No trees on aquifer1981 163 14 136 0 13 7 133 10 13 -52 95 109 111982 91 -14 99 0 6 -16 93 10 4 -21 33 76 31983 9 -37 46 0 0 -37 36 10 0 -37 7 36 31984 48 0 48 0 0 0 38 10 0 -7 9 46 01985 267 61 175 0 31 62 168 10 27 65 87 104 111986 20 -46 66 0 0 -47 57 10 0 -37 13 43 1Total 598 -22 570 0 50 -31 525 60 44 -89 244 414 29

The results of surface-water modelling show that open-water evaporation from a reservoircompletely overshadows the decreases in inflow to it due to reducing runoff by improved in-fieldwater harvesting, and so is the driving force determining water levels in the dam. Open-waterevaporation is therefore a major non-productive loss (see Annex F). Since the study catchments aresmall headwater micro-catchments, damming water in catchment reservoirs does not have muchdownstream effect because the volume of runoff captured by such reservoirs constitutes a relativelysmall proportion (31%) of total runoff. In assessing the trade-off between management ofgroundwater and surface water the model results show a potentially significant trade-off.Harvesting all runoff to enhance groundwater recharge increases drainage (potential recharge), as

11

well as baseflow and evapotranspiration, but significantly reduces runoff (Table 4). The net effectis to cause the dam to dry up on the average 3 times in 25 years, and to remain less than a third fullmost of the time (Lovell et al., 2001a; Annex E).

Lovell et al. (2001a; Annex E) used two separate models, ACRU for surface water andMODFLOW for groundwater. The modelling framework has limitations – ideally the surface waterand groundwater models should be integrated in the manner described by Sophocles and Perkins(2000). For use in semi-arid crystalline basement areas, MODFLOW ideally requires revision tobetter cope with high evaporative demand (frequent drying of cells), relatively thin aquifers insteep topography, and induced recharge following aquifer depletion. ACRU ideally requiresrevision to better indicate evaporative losses and to distinguish between saturation-excess runofffrom the aquifer area and infiltration-excess runoff from the catchment as a whole. Despite theselimitations, however, the simplified conceptual models used in this paper have still providedvaluable insights in the way a complex system works and the implications of management overspace and time, especially the role of evapotranspiration, the mechanisms of well failure, thebrevity of management benefits, and the limited downstream effects of this management. The studyconfirms the need for integrated watershed modelling in development programs to highlightmisconceptions associated with the usual catchment management practices.

Table 4. The effect of harvesting all runoff to enhance groundwater

Av. over 25 years Evapotranspiration(mm)

Drainage(mm)

Dam storage(per cent full)

Runoff(mm)

Baseflow(mm)

No re-infiltration 507 70 37 21.0 0.7

Full re-infiltration 523 92 11 5.4 4.8

4.3 Livelihood outputs

Livelihood analyses were done within the sustainable livelihoods framework. The uniqueness ofthe survey has been noted in Section 5. Most of the households within the catchment are severelyconstrained in terms of their capital assets (Campbell et al., 2002). In terms of gross incomeprofiles, most households within the study sites rely on income (cash and subsistence) from avariety of sources, including dryland crop production (100% of the households), gardening (84%),livestock production (78%), woodland activities (100%), wage or home industries (82%) andremittances (91%) (Campbell et al., 2002). Households differ with regards to the amount of incomethat these activities bring in, however. Different household livelihood strategies therefore comprisevarious combinations of the same basic set of activities. One key factor driving differentiation iswhether a household has access to remittance income, as this is re-invested in farming activities(especially livestock and crops) and education, two variables which can further change householdstatus (Campbell et al., 2002)

There is pervasive poverty in the study areas – 70% of the households fell under the food povertyline, while 90% fell below the consumption poverty line1; 87% of households fell below theDecember 1999 national poverty datum line; and only 3% of the households had an income greaterthan US$1 per person per day. De facto female-headed households are shown to be better off thande jure female-headed households or male-headed households, indicating the importance ofremittances to uplift a household, as de facto female-headed households have high remittances, alsoresulting in high cattle numbers. Seventy four percent of male-headed households are under thefood poverty line, while only 56% of the de facto female-headed households are in this state(Campbell et al., 2002).

1 The ICES 1995/96 food poverty line represents the income required to meet basic nutritional needs, while the ICES

1995/96 consumption poverty line allows for basic food consumption and some allowance for housing, clothing,education, health and transport (Cavendish, 1999).

12

What determines whether households are out of poverty is largely their ability to access largeremittances and dryland crop cash incomes. We identified 10 types of households according totheir different strategies, only two of which have almost no households below the food povertyline. These only comprised 8% of households in the sample. They are characterised by highremittances and high crop sales. Numbers of cattle, size of dryland fields and educational status arealso negatively correlated with high poverty. Access to assets is thus important in determiningpoverty levels. This is probably a self-reinforcing cycle in which access to assets allows householdsto improve income, and to invest in further assets. In contrast, lack of access to assets isunfavourable to achieving high income, which further prevents asset accumulation. These latterkinds of households are in a poverty trap from which it is difficult to escape (Campbell et al.,2002). Most case studies of successful households indicated that access to non-farm income wascrucial, and success generally meant migration of one or family members at one time or other.

Considering that income from livestock is largely based on unimproved grazing, the common poolresources of woodlands and grazing areas provide 30-40% of income for all wealth quartiles, withthis income being predominantly grazing in the top quartiles and predominantly forest products inthe lowest quartile. Water is also largely a common pool resource2 in such areas – it is essential forgarden production, which contributes nearly 10% of the total income in all the quartiles. Thuscommon pool resources form the basis for between a third and a half of all the income.

Largely on the basis of key informant interviews, the following key drivers of livelihood changewere identified: (a) rainfall, (b) macro-economic changes, (c) changing institutional arrangementsand social processes, and (d) demographic processes and HIV/AIDS. In spite of the pressures,households have a rich and varied livelihood portfolio, with displays of infinite resourcefulness tomake ends meet. It is not uncommon for households to have its members variously involved inraising livestock, growing a diversity of crops, collecting forest products for subsistence or sale,off-farm employment and remitting money back home, small scale industries (e.g. craft productionor beer brewing), etc.

A Bayesian Network (BN) model was used to investigate the best ways of improving cash incomeof poor people (Annex G). The model also used the concept of 'vulnerability', which wasconsidered as a composite of cash income level and the resilience of that income. Results from themodel show that: macro-economic and rainfall effects on local livelihoods outweigh the effects thatcan be achieved through local development initiatives; market development is critical to improvedcash income; capacity building of organisations can be as important, if not more so, than any focuson a particular production system; and an integrated approach covering several productionactivities, is required to make a sizeable impact on cash income (Cain et al., 2001; Annex G).

We also modelled crop income (subsistence and cash) and showed that, in dry years, anintervention involving doubling the garden area could provide a major boost to average cropincome but would not compensate for the loss of income from dryland crops during drought years.Through action research in Romwe one of the irrigated gardens was increased in size, doubling thenumber of beneficiaries. This enhanced the safety net but, to date, has not made a fundamentaldifference to the poverty status of the community. A similar initiative in Mutangi saw a new gardenbeing developed – which doubled the garden area – and gravity-fed water being provided. The newoptions need to be complemented by further action research on adaptive management to match thenew levels of water use to the spatial and temporal variations in availability of the surface andground water resources (Lovell et al., 2001a; Annex E). Increased production alone is not enough,however, if the target includes boosting household cash income. There is need for research aimedat enhancing marketing opportunities, improving post-harvest storage or processing the produce.

2 There are some private wells that are used to irrigate gardens but most of these are accessed by more than one

household, through kin-based and neighbour-based networks (Figure 3).

13

5 Research Activities

Multidisciplinary research activities were conducted over a three-year period within the frameworkof a comparative analysis of two semiarid case-study sites, Romwe and Mutangi, in Chivi District(Mugabe et al., 2001). A multi-stakeholder inception workshop, held prior to commissioning theproject, decided to restrict the studies to two sites so as to allow for more focused analyses thatwould enhance project rigor and depth. The workshop emphasised that the two-site strategy beadequately augmented by other approaches including trend analyses, scaling-up reviews andmodelling, to enhance the policy relevance and potential for dissemination of the findings(Mandondo, 1998). In the Romwe micro-catchment, project activities were an extension of aproject (R5846) on groundwater development in crystalline basement areas (Bromley et al., 1999).A scoping exercise, involving the screening of 10 micro-catchments in Chivi and MweneziDistricts, was undertaken to identify the additional catchment (Mapfumo, 1999). Catchmentselection was done by a multi-stakeholder group including development NGOs active in thedistricts (CARE, Intermediate Technology Development Group), the Department of Research andSpecialist Services, Agritex, RDC officials, local communities, and project researchers. Mutangiwas selected as the second catchment on the basis of its contrasting social and biophysicalcharacteristics to those observed at Romwe (Mapfumo, 1999).

One project output envisaged identifying and quantifying key biophysical linkages amongstcomponents of the micro-catchment in relation to hydrological behaviour, and making the resultsaccessible to CPR management. Prior to the current project, the physical state of the Romwecatchment had been recorded in baseline surveys of geology, vegetation, soil, land use, watersources, population, and agricultural practices (Bromley et al., 1999). Similar surveys alsopreceded the installation of hydrometric equipment in Mutangi e.g. for geology and soils (Gotosa etal., 1999), for landuse patterns (Hodnett 2000), and for vegetation (Mapaure 1999, Kwesha andMapaure, 2000).

A hydrological monitoring programme was commissioned in each of the catchments through theinstallation of hydrometric equipment to record various aspects of the hydrological cycle, includingpartitioning of rainfall into surface runoff, interflow, evaporation from soil and vegetation,baseflow to streams and rivers, groundwater recharge and human abstraction. Given the spatialvariability in geology, weathering, soils, topography, vegetation, land use and management,different approaches were taken to investigate potentially important hydrological processes.Measurements were made at four scales in both catchments: catchment, sub-catchment, transectand point. Three sub-catchments were studied in Romwe: red soil area 0.025 km2, grey duplex soilarea 0.011 km2, and miombo woodland area 0.5 km2. In Mutangi, four sub-catchments associatedwith tributaries of the Mutorahuku River, which feeds into the dam were instrumented. Given theimportance of surface water in Mutangi both the dam and tributaries of its feeder stream weregauged. The hydrological monitoring programme also extended to include the groundwatercomponent. Other considerations in the design of the instrumentation programme in Mutangi werevariations in catenary position (upper ridge, lower slope and valley floor), and in landuse - arable,fallow, and mopane woodland (Hodnett, 1999). Limitations of instrumentation and design,especially with regards to capturing spatial and temporal variation, were offset somewhat by usinga variety of approaches – modelling spatial and temporal dimensions, scaling-up studies, and thecollection of historical data, wherever it was available in surrounding areas (Lovell et al., 2001a;Annex E).

Another project output included critically appraising existing institutional arrangements to manageCPRs so as to identify possible approaches to strengthening local people’s capacity in this regard.Institutional analyses were done mainly at the local level, but were extended to consider how localarrangements fitted into the broader district-to-national governance framework. PRA techniqueswere used mostly to understand the governance setting at the local level including: the distributionof both settlements and resources within the catchments; the range of users and uses of variousresources; characterisation of users according to their socio-economic status; local rules and their

14

enforcement structures and procedures; leaders and their various roles, and the relationships amongthem; units of social organisations, and how resource users across these relate to each other;people’s priorities and expectations with regards to natural resource governance; perceptions oftrends, etc (Nemarundwe, 2001: Nemarundwe and Kozanayi, 2002).

Most group activities were stratified by gender, age and socio-economic status since these representaxes along which social difference among local communities is most commonly reported (cf. Berry1989; Fortmann and Nabane, 1992). Less obtrusive approaches, including participant observationand partial participant observation, were used for more sensitive analyses, especially those aimed atunderstanding local conflicts and the related micro-politics. One researcher resided at Romwe forover a year, whilst two more resided with the communities in Mutangi and Romwe for over 2years. In that time there was complete integration of researchers in all aspects of social life (theywere allocated fields to work, attended all community activities, were involved in all manner ofreciprocal relations).

Property rights surveys were also used at the local level to explore and characterise the diversity ofrules that make up the property rights systems associated with different resources and land classesin both micro-catchments. The tenure surveys were intended to provide a finer analysis of theconcept of property rights than the conventional notion of a bundle of rights broadly related tostate, private or common property (Berkes and Farvar, 1989, Ostrom, 1990). Our researchersadapted a method used by Luckert (unpublished) that describes property-rights systems accordingto various characteristics, identified from property-rights literature, that are hypothesised to havesystematic effects on resource management. These characteristics include: comprehensiveness;exclusiveness; use designation; duration; allotment type; size; transferability; fees; operationalrequirements; operational control; and security. Using the above structure, a standardised interviewwas designed and administered to key informants in the study areas. Because the researchers wereseeking to describe village-level rules, village-level officials, such as village headman andcouncillors, were interviewed. Five officials were interviewed in Romwe and six in Mutangi. Landclasses across which the above characteristics were investigated included household plots,community woodlands, riverine areas and sacred areas. The analysis of these characteristics ofproperty rights also extended to different types of products including exotic and indigenous fruittrees, other indigenous plant resources, animals and water. The tenure survey was based on keyinformant interviews in both the catchments.

A review was undertaken of how the local institutional setting was placed within the broaderdistrict-to-national governance framework (Mandondo 2000, 2001). The review investigated theassignment of authority and responsibility among actors at various levels including the state,district and the grassroots levels. This work also involved attending district-level meetings.

Baseline institutional analyses, together with scoping studies that assessed people’s priorities andexpectations, were key in identifying entry points for strengthening community capacity to managecommon property resources. The project used a wide repertoire of participatory action research(PAR) tools to transact changes in institutional arrangements and to enhance community capacityto manage common pool and other resources. PAR techniques used included leadership training,exchange visits both within and outside the catchments, social learning approaches focused on treeplanting in the woodlands, visioning and scenario building approaches to transact changes indistrict-local governance arrangements, and a micro-credit scheme using on funds kindly providedby the Irish charity War on Want. PAR approaches were also used to facilitate the process ofexpanding the community garden around the collector well in Romwe. Most of these techniqueswere used in a complementary fashion i.e., exchange visits and leadership training helped build theconfidence and self-esteem that proved essential in dialoguing with district level officials duringthe 'scenarios' meeting.

Scenario building is a methodology that involves participants building visions of the future as afirst step towards redefining current development pathways. Visioning is widely used in the

15

corporate sector (Becker 1983), but it has also been developed as part of participatory research anddevelopment in rural contexts (Wollenberg et al. 2000). In our case, visions were developed aroundgovernance systems, particularly the nexus between the district and local levels. Scenario-buildingexercises were thus used as a tool for facilitating the crafting of a common vision for naturalresource governance between district authorities and local communities. This involved havingcommunities first articulate their own visions, after which there was a joint meeting at the districtlevel aimed at crafting a joint vision between the communities and district level officials (Campbellet al., 2000).

The last project output involved identifying and promoting options for markedly improvinglivelihoods in the micro-catchments. Baseline studies included the use of a household questionnaireto collect data to support livelihood analyses. There are few detailed household livelihood analysesin dryland Africa so the research team followed the methodology developed by Cavendish (1999;2002) in neighbouring Shindi Ward, with some modifications that we believe are improvements.Cavendish (1999) notes that such survey instruments lead to unique empirical results; very few ofthe resource-use patterns recorded would be captured in standard household budget surveys (e.g.,collection of wild fruits, collection of poles). Standard surveys consistently underestimatewoodland-based income; hence overestimating agriculturally based income. The survey wasconducted as a quarterly household income and expenditure survey, over 15 months from late 1998to early 2000. A stratified random sample was taken with households selected from each of thevillages in the social catchment in proportion to the total household number in the village. TheRomwe area contained 416 households in 10 villages, whilst the Mutangi area contained 453households in 18 villages. The final sample size was 199 households.

The focus of the survey was in tracking how households use their available resources in pursuit oflivelihoods, and the returns that they receive from these activities. The survey paid particularattention to the need to ask questions that did not require long-term detailed memory and so couldbe answered reasonably accurately. By visiting each household once a quarter, sufficientobservations could be obtained on information that was only likely to be recalled over a short timespan. The resulting data were therefore initially highly disaggregated; they were only aggregatedlater after analysis. Because households have to cope with substantial seasonal variability, the firstlevel of aggregation of the data was by quarter.

The collection of livelihood data through the questionnaire was augmented by numerous keyinformant interviews and case studies of different kinds of households. In addition assessmentswere made of people’s livelihood options, needs and priorities (Kozanayi and Mandondo 2000,Mabhachi and Kozanayi 2000). Various options were then screened in terms of their potential forimproving livelihoods by using a variety of approaches, including multi-criteria analysis, cost-benefit analysis and Bayesian network (BN) (Cain et al., 2001).

The Bayesian network (BN) was one of the tools used to achieve integration of the variouscomponents of the project. We developed an “integrated” model to aid in conceptualising andinvestigating the interactions between the linked biophysical and human components of the system(Cain et al., 2001a). The model was designed to investigate likely impacts of development optionson livelihoods.

Biophysical surveys also provided several subsidiary data layers including vegetation types,cropping patterns, geology, household locations and water sources as well as the usualphysiographic features. All these were incorporated into a GIS. This enabled researchers to overlayincome and other household characteristics on the biophysical data sets.

16

6 Contribution of outputs6.1 Output 1

Existing institutional arrangements to manage common-property resources (CPRs) criticallyappraised, and innovative approaches to strengthening the capacity to manage CPRs investigatedand promoted.

The project was not only about generating knowledge and techniques, but also about seeking totransact and sustain positive change on the basis of the new ideas and skills. The more immediatecontribution of the institutional baseline surveys and related analyses was, therefore, an improvedunderstanding of the institutional setting of common pool resources in the two study communities,and in particular the complexity of rights of access and management. Such rights are largely basedon an informal system of norms, mores and taboos that mostly lie outside the sphere of official rulesystems. These define a complex maze of property rights that vary across categories of resourcesand land units, and shape equally complex kin-based webs of access that extend beyond sourcevillages. Related constrains include boundary mismatches between resource units, user groups,social groups and administrative units; rent capture by the elite; and numerous cases of failure oflocal organizations.

The OVIs for this output were that at least two approaches to community based management wouldbe developed by the end of the project. This required that researchers give considerable emphasis toprocess facilitation. The first approach that we adopted was to assist the local communities tonegotiate with the Chivi RDC the right to formulate, harmonise and enforce rules, and to impose,collect and use fines, whilst the RDC accepted responsibility for coordinating, endorsing andmonitoring the exercise of these powers (Campbell et al., 2000). A needs assessment had identifiedthe issue of harmonising district-level and local rules as one of the communities’ priorities in thearea of the environment. To do this required helping the community and RDC to develop acommon vision of natural resource governance, first through meetings in the catchments in whichcommunities developed their own vision of governance, and later through a joint meeting withdistrict level officials to develop the common vision. After a day-long dialogue, the participantsemerged with a vision of governance that was hailed by the various actors as being moredemocratic. The participants3 included RDC executives, councillors, the district administration,Agritex and forestry officials, CARE (our NGO development partner in the catchments),researchers and community representatives including headmen and village heads.

Because of the limited timeframe, project facilitators had to disengage from the process before thevision was implemented, but the Chivi RDC remained keen on implementing the vision, at firstthrough pilot sites, and then scaling up. A first step in this direction has involved doing away withcouncil-paid enforcers of official natural resource by-laws in favour of local enforcementmechanisms that include traditional leaders. This novel approach enhances social capital and givesvoice to the poor in the management of their natural resources, but it is likely to be constrained byhigh transaction costs associated with organizing for collective action.

The alternative option was more broad-based and aimed at enhancing human capital especiallyleadership skills, accountability, adaptiveness and general widening of the knowledge base. A widerange of techniques were used for capacity enhancement including leadership training (Chikuvireand Chuma, 1999), training for transformation (Gumbo and Hwindizi, 2000), exchange visits, feed-back workshops and demonstration and extension oriented field days. Much of the work of thelocally-based research assistants comprised facilitating various social processes, includingprocesses surrounding micro-credit, expanding gardens and improving dryland production. Much

3 Although they did not directly participate, experts in the Rural District Council Capacity Building Programme

(RDCCBP), particularly Mike Holdgate and Mr Felix Gwenzi, gave advice on power plays within RDCs and actorsinvolved.

17

of the latter targeted soil and water conservation, which was identified, through needs assessments,as areas that people tend to prioritise.

Both approaches served to give local people a greater say in the running of their affairs, and todemand greater transparency and accountability on the part of those who represent them. Giventhat 'voicelessness' is often cited by the poor themselves as an indicator of poverty (World Bank,2001), the approaches promoted in this project should have a positive impact on at least this onedimension of the problem.

Systems modelling with the BN model was used to assess whether “functioning” institutions,considered together with a range of other internal and external variables, would have athoroughgoing impact on poverty, for instance through increased cash income and its resilience toexternally induced shocks. The model indicated that household vulnerability was highly sensitiveto changes in the macro-economy and to the rainfall regime, with the degree to which institutionsare functioning or not functioning only playing a secondary role. For instance, a “good” macro-economy can increase cash income, relative to a “bad” macro-economy, by 40% or more. Incomparison, moving from a system with non-functioning institutions to one with functioninginstitutions only increases cash income by up to 8%, suggesting that improving institutions on itsown is unlikely to have significant and thoroughgoing impacts on poverty (Frost et al, 2002; AnnexA). Nonetheless, institutional interventions generally had even higher impacts on cash income thattechnologies within single sectors (e.g. improving crop production only raised cash income by 3%).

6.2 Output 2

Key biophysical linkages amongst components of the micro-catchments identified, quantified, andmade accessible for CPR management, and options for more efficient and extensive use of waterresources identified and promoted in these micro-catchments.

The OVIs for this output were that an integrated soil, vegetation and hydrological monitoringprogramme would be in place and functioning at Romwe by end of Year 1 (an extension of past 5years of activity), and in the new micro-catchment by the end of Year 2. Furthermore, at least twooptions for more efficient and extensive use of water resources would be promoted by end of Year 3with the involvement of key stakeholders. If viable options were not identified, the project findingswould be communicated to all major stakeholders.

An integrated monitoring programme was set up in both micro-catchments as planned. Members ofthe two communities took part in recording information and assessing its implications. Discussionswith farmers in the two communities indicated that their own monitoring of resources was usuallyconfined to periods when the resource concerned was becoming scarce, and that observations wereseldom written down. For those variables requiring instrumentation and infrastructure as part of amonitoring programme, there is almost no prospect of on-going community involvement unlesssupported from outside.

The main findings from the biophysical component of Output 2 were that: evapotranspiration, andnot human abstraction, accounted for much of the loss of ground or surface water within thecatchments; various forms of management in the upper catchments did not have significant effectson downstream catchments; localised drawdown during dry cycles could lead to well failure; and forsurface water a balance was needed between runoff control in fields in relation to water availabilityin the dam. The findings justified expanding the use of water to compete with various natural waterlosses (evaporation from surface water; evapotranspiration from groundwater), while cautioning onneed for adaptiveness in matching abstraction rates to temporal fluctuations and spatial variation(e.g. local conditions at well sites). Related cost-benefit analyses for the mainly groundwaterRomwe catchment suggested that the best way to implement the opportunistic strategy would be todevelop and upgrade wells at prime groundwater locations into community wells to cushion peopleduring times of stress, but augmenting these with ephemeral private wells that make greater use ofwater when it is available. In the mainly surface water Mutangi catchment the optimum strategy

18

would be to upgrade the underused dam, maintaining the outflow statistics but competing morevigorously with evaporation loss.

Accordingly, the two options for more efficient and extensive use of water resources that we choseto promote were the expansion of the irrigated gardens at Romwe and Mutangi, and encouragementof better soil and water conservation in people's fields. Both options had been identified by membersof the communities as among those that they wanted to explore and both were carried out inconjunction with community members. Promotion of these options was facilitated with theassistance of AGRITEX in Romwe, and CARE in Mutangi.

Expanding the community gardens allowed new members to access the opportunity of benefitingfrom additional and more diversified agricultural production. At Romwe, the garden was doubledfrom 4214 m2, which before expansion catered for 50 members, 36 of whom were womenincluding 12 widows, with each member owning seven plots measuring 6 m2 each. Expansion ofthe garden allowed for an additional 50 members including 4 widows, 16 young and newly marriedpeople, 3 women from polygamous families. Doubling of the garden therefore increased thenumber of direct and indirect beneficiaries from 400 to 900. Expanding the garden in Mutangientailed relocating the garden downstream of the dam, so as to allow for gravity-fed irrigation, andincreasing its size. Both are likely to increase abstraction rates. There is a need for information onhow users can adjust their rate of abstraction in relation to the amount of the water in the dam,particularly during dry cycles or in the case where improved runoff control in fields upstream of thedam leads to less inflow.

Although expanding the gardens resulted in greater access by under-privileged families to thebenefits of improved water developments at the local level, the impact of expanding the gardens onpoverty reduction as a whole is projected to be small, because of higher-level constraints such aslack of markets, labour constraints and institutional failures (Campbell et al. 2002; Annexes A andH). Research and development on labour-saving devices or technologies is worth pursuing, but,once again, by itself will only make a small impact on poverty status. The development of gravity-fed irrigation at Mutangi addressed one of the identified labour constraints – hand-watering ofcrops using buckets – and so provides additional benefit, but increasing incomes from gardensalone is not sufficient to enable people to break out of poverty. Even if markets could be securedfor additional crops produced by a substantial increase in the area of irrigated gardens (by thetechnically feasible 7-8 times the current size), it would only reduce the proportion of householdsbelow the food poverty line from 71% to 62% (Annex A). Nevertheless, in expanding people's foodsupply, especially during times of drought, this intervention helps to strengthen their safety net andlessen their vulnerability to intermittent failures in dryland crop production. We estimated incomeprofiles for Romwe in a dry year and explored the impacts of doubling garden area. If the gardenarea is doubled, this would provide a major boost to average crop income (dryland and garden, forboth subsistence and cash) in dry years, causing an increase of nearly 60% over what would havebeen achieved without the extra gardens. The increase (about Z$2000) would unfortunately notcompensate fully for the losses in dryland production caused by the dry year (about Z$4000).

The second option for more efficient and extensive use of water resources that was identified andpromoted in the two micro-catchments was encouraging the uptake of measures to enhance soil andwater conservation in fields. This was done primarily through demonstrations and visits toneighbouring communities where improved soil and water conservation measures, many of themdesigned by the farmers themselves, were being implemented. This initiative was closely integratedwith broader discussions on the need to adopt an adaptive water resource management strategy, asthe aim of this intervention was to increase the amount of water available for crops (and reduce soiland nutrient loss), as well as to enhance the prospects for recharge of groundwater.

The need for an adaptive water resource management strategy was partly addressed by holdingcourses on hydrology with the communities at the catchment level. It is highly unlikely though thatsuch a strategy, on its own, will have immediate impact – there is need for sustained as well as

19

multi-scale promotion of its elements. The dissemination of hydrological information on how watercan be better used has been extended to other levels, including a policy brief in which watermanagement issues are placed within a broader context (Lovell et al., 2001b), and a poster on waterlivelihood linkages (Hodnett et al., 2001). There is further need for such information to feed intonew structures created as a result of recent reforms in the water sector, particularly the catchmentand sub-catchment councils, and the Water Resource Management Strategy (WRMS). The projectinvolved WRMS representatives in most of its consultative meetings and scientific report backs,and thus enhanced scope for impact at that level.

6.3 Output 3

Options for markedly improving livelihoods in the target micro-catchments identified andpromoted.

The OVIs for this output included robust screening of options for improving livelihood with a viewdeveloping and implementing an intervention plan, or if options do not work to communicate theresults to major stakeholders. Most capital assets are severely constrained, and livelihoods arevariously based on mixtures of dryland cropping, irrigated gardening, woodland based activities,local wage labour and remittances. The options screened were therefore representative of the abovemajor livelihood sectors. Foregoing sections have already outlined the potential impact ofexpanded irrigation and of soil and water conservation on dryland productivity, these being optionsthat were both screened and promoted.

Another option that was promoted included a micro-credit scheme that the project inherited from apreceding project in the Romwe catchment. The first phase of the scheme faced several constraintsincluding lack of regular and scheduled meetings and elections, poor accounting systems andfinancial records, domination by members of elite lineages, inequities in the distribution of theloans in which political and economic elites gained at expense of the less privileged, as well as lowrepayment profiles (Mutamba et al., 2000). Researchers sourced more credit funds and facilitatedthe formation of a new and more representative loan committee. In spite of this, some membersfrom the old committee, particularly those from influential lineages still found their way into thecommittees, and the disbursement of funds still remained largely inequitable, with influentialvillage heads generally getting much more than ordinary people, particularly young families(Mutamba et al., 2000). But in general more people from less privileged groups were able to accessthe loans than before. The overall impact of the scheme on poverty is constrained by the limitednature and distribution of the funds and the high and uninsured risk resulting from high climatevariability, which sees many people unable to service their loans (Mutamba et al. 2000). Weconclude that there will be an inevitable collapse of the scheme as funds dry up because of baddebts. Remittances and micro-credit serve similar purposes, but micro-credit in these riskyenvironments does not have much potential.

From needs assessments, options for improving livestock were not met with as much enthusiasm asdryland agriculture or irrigated gardens. Cattle are, moreover, largely owned by wealthierhouseholds, so any intervention to improve cattle production would have less impact on poorerhouseholds (20% of the households own 61% of the overall cattle herd). Drylands remain acornerstone of livelihoods. In relation to inorganic fertilisers, research is needed on how best toapply fertiliser opportunistically as the season develops. As farmers continuously assess thelikelihood of a good harvest, and adjust their fertiliser applications accordingly, there is also a needto investigate the possibility of local markets for small quantities of fertilisers that can be purchasedat short notice. Breeding for more appropriate crop varieties may be appropriate, but we do wonderthe extent to which further major gains can be made. Zimbabwe is relatively well-endowed withcrop improvement programmes and most farmers are already purchasing improved seed. Theproblems for the breeder are illustrated by the three years of study, which were marked by normalrainfall, followed by waterlogging, followed by poor distribution of rainfall. Targeting woodlandresources as a basis for income-earning opportunities is constrained by the limited stock of woodybiomass (Frost et al. 2002; Annex A). Although woodland activities are most important among the

20

poorest of the poor they only provide 30% of total income. While the woodlands provide securityduring droughts and disasters they are unlikely to lift significant numbers out of poverty, with theirimpact likely to be more than just a safety net among few individuals e.g. master carvers. A rangeof options was screened, with some actually being promoted but no clear-cut intervention plan canbe recommended.

The limited success achieved with many of the options we tested and promoted on this projectindicate that, by themselves, single interventions are likely to have limited impact in reducingpoverty. A more integrated, sustained and multi-level set of interventions and support is required.We also suggest that it has to be recognised that large-scale poverty alleviation in these semi-aridareas is a near impossible task. While the livelihood analysis shows that households are incrediblyadaptive in coping with their situations, in the absence of better markets for products, there is littlethey are able to do to escape poverty. The Chivi site is not that far from markets and good roads,illustrating that in even more remote locations the situation will be more difficult. The few caseswhere households escape poverty are usually based on success in raising income from off-farmsources, often involving migration. Many of those having escaped poverty will have productivefarming operations, often based on cash crops, especially cotton, but this is invariably subsidisedand supplemented by off-farm income. Many of the successful households will have assistancefrom family members who migrated to better opportunities.

We conclude that a primary objective in development will be to empower local people. Asapproaches to empower people and the development of social capital are so critical, short projecttimelines are hardly sufficient to make any impact. Transitional arrangements, e.g., to ensuremarket access, may need to be made over some considerable time period. Without some significantexternal influences, we will not be able to improve much upon the local situation. Local peoplealready know how to do better than we can ever hope to do. Technical research should continue totry and identify improved technologies but these should be based on detailed understanding ofcurrent livelihoods and constraints, and set within the framework of empowering approaches wherefarmers are offered choices of technology, access to them, information, experience, and enablingeconomic and institutional environments.

6.4 Dissemination and uptake

Cutting across all the outputs is the issue disseminating information, knowledge and experiencearising from our studies and the interventions they produced. A variety of promotion anddissemination pathways targeted at various levels were pursued. Two journal articles on theinstitutional dimensions of the project have been published, with one receiving critical acclaimfrom well-known scholars including Bill Hyde, Daniel Bromley, Roy Behnke and Robert Fisher.The other one was recommended by NRSP for submission to the British Secretary of State as agood example of DFID-funded work on the programme. One other journal paper awaits publicationwhile 9 other drafts have been submitted or will be submitted shortly. Five articles on variousaspects of the project have also been done and published through institutional report seriesdistributed to various government departments, local DFID NR advisers, and the RDC and DA,with whom the project has data sharing agreements. Excerpts of two articles produced on theproject featured in wide-circulation newsletters including CIFOR News and ETFN.

The project produced two promotional brochures on CPR management, three of which outlinedCPR options, one of them being translated to Shona and distributed and used at communitymeetings. Three posters were also done on the project on various aspects of water and catchmentmanagement and these have been distributed to district departments of government, the RDC,CARE and to local schools. Prior to distribution, the salient aspects of the content of all the abovematerials had been presented in symposia, conferences and workshops. Project researchers alsoparticipated in the production of manuals and guidelines, including one on catchment managementdone in conjunction with CARE, two CIFOR brochures on micro-politics and scenarios ongovernance, and another brochure on participatory methods done by CIAT, with input from theproject.

21

Multimedia promotional activities were used including demonstration and extension activities andinterviews that were covered on radio and television. Two of the papers have been web sitedthrough an electronic journal (ASQ) and electronic newsletters including POLEX and the WRMnewsletter. A project CD that can be used on any computer without need for advanced software hasbeen set up. It contains over 200 documents together with databases, working models, and alllivelihood and GIS data. This has been distributed to key stakeholders. Many of the outputs can beaccessed through the project website.

Project researchers have gained considerable experience on leadership issues in common propertymanagement initiatives. Such experience represents an invaluable resource that went into thedevelopment, in conjunction with CARE, of a handbook on catchment management in whichleadership issues formed a module theme. The manual should prove useful for field practitionersacross a variety of sectors including forestry, agriculture and water. Given the importance of micro-political issues, we also put effort into producing a guide to analysing those village-levelinteractions that can jeopardise projects (Sithole, 2002). This guide is currently aimed at university-level classes or senior NGO or government officials. In future it would be appropriate to reworkthis to make it more directly relevant to the needs of grassroots extension agents and NGOs.

While the project team held many feedback sessions with the local community, including someformal training courses (e.g. on leadership issues, managing water opportunistically), our closeassociation with CARE has meant that there has been much mutual learning, and CARE’s widereach has ensured that important lessons will reach many other local people.

One unplanned activity from the project was the major input from project participants towards anew way of doing business in the CGIAR, with its 16 international research centers (a dauntingtask!). The stimulus for this initiative was from Prof. J Sayer, head of the CGIAR Center Director’sTask Force. At the workshop in Penang in 2000 three project participants attended and presentedtheir work (Campbell, Lovell, Lynam) which has subsequently been published, and this wasfollowed by Sayer inviting Campbell to work on the synthesis of all material emerging from thisinitiative. The Chivi project is one of the three case studies highlighted in the forthcoming book,which essentially tackles how to do more integrated science (Sayer and Campbell, 2003).

7 Publications and other communication materials7.1 Books and book chapters

7.1.1 Published

Frost, P.G.H. 2001. Reflections on integrated land and water management. In: J.H.C. Gash, E.O.Odada, L. Oyebande, and R.E. Schulze (eds) Freshwater Resources in Africa, pp. 49-56.BAHC, Potsdam, Germany.

Nemarundwe, N. 2002. Institutional collaboration and shared learning for forest management inChivi District, Zimbabwe. In: E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, J. Fox and S. Brodt(eds). Social Learning in Community Forestry Management: Linking Concepts andPractices, pp 85-108. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.

Campbell, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. 2002.Household Livelihoods in Semi-arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Bogor: Center forInternational Forestry Research.

7.1.2 Pending publication

Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. 2003 The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods andthe Global Environment. Cambridge University Press

Nemarundwe, N. 2002. Formal and informal decision-making platforms: Women’s role in naturalresource management institutions in Southern Zimbabwe. In: C. Colfer (ed.) No Fair!

22

Enhancing Equity in Forest Management [to be submitted to Resources for the Future –RFF Press].

7.2 Journal articles

7.2.1 Peer reviewed and published

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., de Jong, W., Luckert, M. and Matose,F. 2001. Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: despairingvoices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development, 29(4): 589-600.

Campbell, B., Sayer, J.A., Frost, P., Vermeulen, S., Ruiz Pérez, M., Cunningham, A., and Prabhu,R. 2001. Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Conservation Ecology5(2): 22. [Online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22

Lovell, C.J., Mandondo, A., Moriarty, P. 2001. The question of scale in Integrated NaturalResources Management. Conservation Ecology 5(2): 25. [Online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art25

Mandondo, A. 2001. Allocation of governmental authority in tiered governance systems: the caseof the Chivi Rural District Council landuse planning and conservation by-laws. AfricanStudies Quarterly, 5(3): [Online] URL:http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a3.htm

7.2.1 Pending publication (in press)

Nemarundwe, N. and Kozanayi, W. 2002. Institutional arrangements for water for water resourceuse: a case study from Southern Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies [in press]

7.2.3 Drafted (most submitted)

Cain, J., Moriarty, P.B. and Lynam, T. 2001. Designing integrated models for participatoryformulation of water management strategies.

Frost, P.G.H., Campbell, B., Mutamba, M., Lovell, C.J., Mandondo, A., Cain, J., Kozanayi, W. andLuckert, M. 2002. Can rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions be improved through bettermanagement of natural resources in catchments? World Development.

Lovell, C.J., Mugabe, F.T., Moriarty, P.B., Hodnett, M. and Batchelor, C.H. 2001. When iscatchment management beneficial? A biophysical case study in a semi-arid crystallinebasement area. Journal of Hydrology.

Mandondo, A. 2001. Forging (un)democratic resource governance systems from the relic ofZimbabwe’s colonial past. Society and Natural Resources.

Mandondo, A., Campbell, B., Luckert, M., Nemarundwe, N., de Jong, W. and Kozanayi, W. 2001.Transacting institutional change in contexts of complexity: experiences from Chivi Districtin Zimbabwe. World Development.

Mugabe, F.T., Hodnett, M. and Senzanje, A. 2001. Comparative hydrological behaviour of twocontrasting catchments in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe.

Nemarundwe, N. 2001. Organisations for local woodland management: the case of Romwecatchment in Southern Zimbabwe.

Sullivan, C.S., Mutamba, M. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. Water use and livelihood security: A study ofrural households in Southern Zimbabwe. Journal of Water Policy.

7.3 Institutional Report Series

Frost, P.G.H. and Mandondo, A. 1999. Improving rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions throughmanagement of micro-catchments in semi-arid regions through the management of micro-catchments. Institute of Environmental Studies Working Paper 12. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Mandondo, A. 2000. Situating Zimbabwe’s natural resource governance systems in history. Centrefor International Forestry Research Working Paper 32. Bogor: Centre for InternationalForestry Research. [Available online athttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-32.pdf]

23

Mandondo, A. 2001. A critique of by-law development and implementation in Chivi District,Zimbabwe. Institute of Environmental Studies Working Paper 19. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe

Moriarty, P.B. 2000. Towards the development of a decision-support system for water resourcedevelopment in semi-arid micro-catchments. Institute of Environmental Studies WorkingPaper 20. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Moriarty, P.B. 2000. Development of a groundwater model of the Romwe micro-catchment,Zimbabwe. Institute of Environmental Studies Working Paper 21. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

7.4 Symposium, conference and workshop papers and posters (not listed elsewhere)

Cain, J., Moriarty, P.B., Lynam, T. and Frost, P.G.H. 1999. Micro-catchment Management andCommon Property Resources: Second Integrated Modelling Workshop – INMOD2.Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Frost, P.G.H., Kozanayi, W. and Mabhachi, O. 2001. A Multi-Objective Analysis of CatchmentManagement Options in Chivi District, Southern Zimbabwe [PowerPoint presentation]

Lynam, T., Cain, J., Moriarty, P., and Frost, P.G.H. 1999. Micro-Catchment Management andCommon Property Resources: First Integrated Modelling Workshop – INTMOD1. Harare:Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Makumire, T. 2000. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject. Proceedings of the Mid-Term Review Workshop. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mandondo, A. 1998. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject: A Team-Up Workshop Report. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mandondo, A., Campbell, B. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. Strengthening Community Capacity toManage CPRs, and its Contribution to Poverty Alleviation. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [poster]

Mapfumo, P. 1999. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject. Proceedings of the First Planning Workshop Together with Catchment SelectionReport. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublishedreport].

Mugabe, F. 1999. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property Resources.Proceedings of the Second Planning Workshop. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mugabe, F. 2000. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject. Proceedings of the Third Planning Workshop. Harare: Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mutamba, M., Campbell, B.M., Luckert, M., Zindi, C., Kozanayi, W. and Jeffrey, S. 2001. Is therea role for natural resource management in poverty alleviation in semi-arid Africa?[PowerPoint presentation]

7.5 Newsletter articles

Campbell, B. 2002. Giving local people control in Zimbabwe. CIFOR news.Mandondo, A. 2000. Abstract of “Forging (un)democratic resource governance systems from the

relic of Zimbabwe’s colonial past” European Tropical Forest Network Newsletter 32

7.6 Academic theses

Moriarty, P. B. 2000. Integrated Catchment Management and Sustainable Water ResourceDevelopment in Semi-Arid Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis, UK: University of Reading.

7.7 Extension-oriented leaflets, brochures, posters & policy briefs

Campbell, B. 2000. Institutions and natural resources in the miombo region: where to withinstitutional arrangements and governance. Bogor: Center for International ForestryResearch [policy brief]

24

Campbell, B.M., Kozanayi, W., Lovell, C., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N. and Sithole, B. 2000.Managing common pool resources in catchments: are there any ways forward? Bogor:Center for International Forestry Research [policy brief].

Campbell, B.M. and Lovell, C. 2000. New ways of managing common property resources -experiences from Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Shona CPR facilitation brochure translated byK. Risinamhodzi, C. Chirara and A. Mandondo. Harare: Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished leaflet]

Campbell, B.M. and others, 2000. Micro-catchment management in semi-arid regions - which wayforward? A brochure of technical and other options [unpublished leaflet]

Center for Ecology and Hydrology. 2001. Managing our resources in an integrated way.Wallingford: Center for Ecology and Hydrology [poster]

Center for Ecology and Hydrology. 2001. Policies for natural resource management. Wallingford:Center for Ecology and Hydrology [poster]

Hodnett, M, Lovell, C., Mugabe, F. and Stevenson, K. 2001. Improving livelihoods throughincreased water use. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[poster]

Institute of Environmental Studies. 1999. Zimbabwe: Micro-catchment management and commonproperty resources. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[brochure]

Lovell, C., Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Sayer, J. and Stevenson, K. 2001. Achieving integratedresource management across scale [draft policy brief]

Makumire, T.B. 2001. Zimbabwe Micro-catchment management and common property resources:Hydrological course for farmers in Mutangi and Romwe micro-catchments. Harare:Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished lecture notes]

7.8 Manuals and guidelines

CARE International. 2002. Catchment Management Manual. Harare: CARE International [Thisproject contributed material for some sections and reviewed the bulk of the manual]

CGIAR Programme on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis. 2000. Equity, Well-Being,and Ecosystem Health: Participatory Research for Natural Resource Management. Cali:CGIAR Programme on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis [one section highlightsthe scenario building methods used on the project to change governance arrangements].

Chikuvire, J. and Chuma, E. 1999. Participatory Extension Approach Workshop. Alvord TrainingCentre, Masvingo, June to 2 July 1999. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies[unpublished report]

Gumbo, D. and Hwindizi, F. 2000. Training for Transformation for leaders in Romwe and Mutangimicro-catchment areas, Chivi District, Zimbabwe. Zvishavane: Zvishavane Water Project[unpublished report]

Sithole, B. 2002. Making Sense of the Micro-Level Politics of Multi-stakeholder Groups: AMethods Manual. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research. (in press – draws onnumerous case studies from Chivi)

Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D. and Buck, L. 2000. Anticipating Change: Scenarios as a Tool forAdaptive Forest Management. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research [onesection highlights the scenario building methods used in the project to change governancearrangements]

7.9 Media presentations

Kozanayi, W. 1999. Report on the demonstration at Romwe that was covered by the ZimbabweBroadcasting Corporation. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Mandondo, A. 2000. Forging (un)democratic resource governance systems from the relic ofZimbabwe’s colonial past. Entire article promoted on the Polex electronic listserve(polex@cgiar.org)

Mandondo, A. 2000. Forging (un)democratic resource governance systems from the relic ofZimbabwe’s colonial past – abstract circulated in World Rainforest Movement, Newsletter35 (website http://www.wrm.org.uy)

25

7.10 Reports and data records

7.10.1 Citation for the project Final Technical Report (FTR)

Mandondo, A., Frost, P., Campbell, B & Mutamba, M. 2002. Micro-Catchment Management andCommon Property Resources in Zimbabwe: Final Technical Report. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

7.10.2 Internal project technical reports

Campbell, B. 2002. Guide to the Numerous SPSS Syntax Files. Bogor: Center for InternationalForestry Research. [unpublished report]

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Lovell, C., Kozanayi, W., Mabhachi, O., Makumire, T., Mugabe, F.,Mutamba, M. and Siziba, S. 2000. Forging New Institutional Arrangements for CommonProperty Resource Management – A Case from Southern Zimbabwe. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Gotosa, J., Makumire, T., Mugabe, F.T. and Muzuva, J. Geology and Soil Surveys of Mutangicatchment. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[unpublished report].

Hodnett, M. 1999. Report on the Pre-Instrumentation Survey of the Mutangi Micro-Catchment.Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Hodnett, M. 2000. The Instrumentation Report for Mutangi Micro-Catchment. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Hodnett, M, Lovell, C., Mugabe, F. and Stevenson, K. 2001. Improving Livelihoods ThroughIncreased Water Use. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[poster]

Kozanayi, W. 2001. Participatory Extension Approach in Practice: An Overview of Experiencesfrom Romwe Micro-catchment in Chivi South District. Harare: Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Kozanayi, W. 2001. Summary of Catchment Activities: DFID Project 1999-2001. Harare: Instituteof Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Kozanayi, W. 2001. Technical Intervention Proposal – Extension of Chidiso Garden. Harare:Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Kozanayi, W. and Mandondo, A. 2000. Community Priorities and Expectations RegardingPotential for Improved Use and Management of Catchment Resources. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Kwesha, D. and Mapaure, I. 2000. Vegetation Survey of Romwe and Mutangi Micro-CatchmentAreas in Chivi District, Zimbabwe. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, Universityof Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Lovell, C. 2001. Livelihoods Improvement Through Support for a More Opportunistic Strategy ofWater Use. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[unpublished report].

Mapaure, I. 1999. Vegetation Survey of Romwe and Mutangi Micro-Catchment Areas, ChiviDistrict, Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mabhachi, O. 2001. Zimbabwe Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject: Summary of Activities Undertaken During the Period January 1999 - April 2001.Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mabhachi, O. 2001. Zimbabwe Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject: End of Project Key Informant Interviews. Harare: Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mabhachi, O. 2001. Participatory Extension Approach in Practice - An Overview of Experiences inMutangi. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[unpublished report].

Mabhachi, O. and Kozanayi, W. 2000. Soil and Water Conservation and Fertility Management inthe Mutangi and Romwe Micro-catchments: Farmer Perceptions, Practices, Priorities and

26

Problems. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[unpublished report].

Mabhachi, O. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. The Village Boundaries of Romwe and Mutangi. Harare:Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mugabe, F.T. 2000. Proposal on Monitoring Interventions. Harare: Institute of EnvironmentalStudies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mugabe, F.T. and Hodnett, M. 2001. Micro-Catchment Management and Common PropertyResources: A Report on Hydrological Work. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mugabe, F. and Kozanayi, W. 2000. Opportunities for Developing and Managing Water Resourcesin Semi-Arid Areas: Communities' Perceptions. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mutamba, M. 2001. Intervention Plan Report. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies,University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mutamba, M., Kozanayi, W. and Campbell, B. 2000. Report on Simudzirayi Micro-credit Scheme.Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Nemarundwe, N. 2001. Proceedings of the Community Feedback Workshops held in Mutangi andRomwe Catchments on the 10th and 11th of September 2001. Harare: Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

7.10.2 Literature reviews (other than those mentioned under other categories)

Chuma, E., Marovanidze, K., Munyanyi, J. and Nyagumbo, I. 2000. A Review of TechnicalOptions in Croplands, Grazing Lands and Woodlands of Semi-Arid South-CentralZimbabwe. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[unpublished report].

Edziwa, B. 2001. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property Resources:Review of Dissemination Strategies. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, Universityof Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

7.10.3 Scoping studies

Mapfumo, P. 1999. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject. Proceedings of the first planning workshop together with catchment selectionreport. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublishedreport].

7.10.4 Datasets, software applications

Sampurna, Y., van Heist. M., Chandra, R., Agustian, I., Hendrik, Campbell, B. and Yuzar, Y. 2002.Data Archive for an Integrated Natural Resource Management Research Programme inSouthern Zimbabwe. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research. A CD containingthe following information on the institutional, biophysical, livelihood, integration,technical options and administrative components of the project:• Scientific papers• In-house reports• Technical reports• Workshop and conference proceedings• Project administration reports• List of participants for exchange visits• Reports on field visits• List of participants to quarterly questionnaire survey• Quarterly questionnaire survey data (raw)• Tenure survey data (raw)• PRA surveys (raw and semi-processed data)• Detailed records of all community meetings• GIS data for both catchments

27

• All working models

7.10.5 Project website

http://www.uz.ac.zw/ies/mcm/

Project also featured on:

(a) http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/watershed/papers/case19.pdf (Land-water linkages in ruralwatersheds: electronic conference Sept-Oct 2000)

(b) http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/project_summaries/water1_projsum.html(c) http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-2000/Content-6.html (local governance

and the legacy of colonial rule)(d) http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/Html/AR-2000/Content-6.html (challenge of

governing common-property resources)(e) www.inrm.cgiar.org/Workshop2000/docs/Bruce/bruce_main.pdf (paper presented at

Penang workshop 2000)(f) http://www.inrm.cgiar.org/Workshop2000/abstract/Lovell/lovell.htm (paper presented at

Penang workshop 2000)(g) http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/newsletter/nl31_oip.htm (news on the project: institutions and

natural resources in the miombo region)(h) http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/SCENARIO.pdf (results from the

scenarios building exercises with communities)

8 References cited in the report

Addison, T. 1996. Zimbabwe: The Impact of Economic Reform on Livelihoods and Poverty.Manuscript, University of Warwick. Paper prepared for the seminar on “Poverty inZimbabwe” hosted by Shanduko, July 1996, Harare.

Becker, H.S. 1983. Scenarios: a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government andindustry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(2): 95-120.

Berkes, F. and Farvar, M.T. 1989. Cooperation from the perspective of human ecology. In F.Berkes (ed) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based SustainableDevelopment, pp 1-17. Belhaven Press, London.

Berry, S. 1989. Social institutions and access to resources. Africa, 59:41-55.Bradley, P. and Dewees, P. 1993. Indigenous woodlands, agricultural production and household

economy in the communal areas. In: P.N. Bradley and K. McNamara (eds) Living withTrees: Policies for Forestry Management in Zimbabwe, pp 63-137. The World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Bromley, J., Butterworth, J.A., Macdonald, D.M.J., Lovell, C.J., Mharapara, I. and Batchelor, C.H.1999. Hydrological processes and water resources management in a dryland environment I:An introduction to the Romwe Catchment Study in Southern Zimbabwe. Hydrology andEarth Systems Sciences, 3(3): 322-332.

Butterworth, J.A., Schulze, R.E., Simmonds, L.P., Moriarty, P. and Mugabe, F.T. 1999.Hydrological processes and water resource management in a dryland environment IV:Long-term ground water level fluctuations due to variation in rainfall. Hydrology andEarth Systems Sciences, 3(3): 353-361.

Cain, J., Moriarty, P.B. and Lynam, T. 2001. Designing integrated models for participatoryformulation of water management strategies. (submitted)

Campbell, B.M., Bradley, P. and Carter, S.E. 1997. Sustainability and peasant farming systems:observations from Zimbabwe. Agriculture and Human Values, 14: 158-168.

Campbell, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. 2002.Household Livelihoods in Semi-arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Bogor: Center forInternational Forestry Research. [in press]

28

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Lovell, C., Kozanayi, W., Mabhachi, O., Makumire, T., Mugabe, F.,Mutamba, M. and Siziba, S. 2000. Forging New Institutional Arrangements for CommonProperty Resource Management – A Case From Southern Zimbabwe. Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Nemarundwe, N., Sithole, B., de Jong, W., Luckert, M. and Matose,F. 2001. Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: despairingvoices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development, 29(4): 589-600.

Cavendish, W. 1999. Incomes and Poverty in Rural Zimbabwe During Adjustment: The Case ofShindi Ward, Chivi Communal Area, 1993/94 To 1996/97. Rep/99-1, Centre for the Studyof African Economies, University of Oxford.

Cavendish, W. 2002. Quantitative methods for estimating the economic value of resource use torural households. In: Campbell, B. and Luckert, M. (eds) Uncovering the Hidden Harvest:Valuation Methods for Woodland and Forest Resources. ‘People and Plants’ ConservationManuals, Earthscan, London.

Chikuvire, J. and Chuma, E. 1999. Participatory Extension Approach Workshop. Alvord TrainingCentre, Masvingo, June to 2 July 1999. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies[unpublished report]

Chipika, J.T. and Kowero, G. 2000. Deforestation of woodlands in communal areas of Zimbabwe:is it due to agricultural policies? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79: 175-185.

Dubrueil, P.L. 1986. Review of the relationships between geophysical factors and hydrologicalcharacteristics in the tropics. Journal of Hydrology, 87: 201-222.

Fortmann, L. and Nabane, N. 1992. The Fruits of Their Labour: Gender, Property and TreeResources in Mhondoro District. Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University ofZimbabwe.

Frost, P.G.H., Campbell, B., Mutamba, M., Lovell, C.J., Mandondo, A., Cain, J., Kozanayi, W. andLuckert, M. 2002. Can rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions be improved through bettermanagement of natural resources in catchments? [submitted].

Frost, P.G.H. and Mandondo, A. 1999. Improving rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions throughmanagement of micro-catchments in semi-arid regions through the management of micro-catchments. Institute of Environmental Studies Working Paper 12. Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Gotosa, J., Makumire, T., Mugabe, F.T. and Muzuva, J. 1999. Geology and Soil Surveys ofMutangi Catchment. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Gumbo, D. and Hwindizi, F. 2000. Training for Transformation for Leaders in Romwe andMutangi Micro-Catchment Areas, Chivi District, Zimbabwe. Zvishavane Water Project,Zvishavane, Zimbabwe.

Hodnett, M. 1999. Report on the Pre-Instrumentation Survey of the Mutangi Micro-Catchment.Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Hodnett, M. 2000. The Instrumentation Report for Mutangi Micro-Catchment. Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Hodnett, M, Lovell, C., Mugabe, F. and Stevenson, K. 2001. Improving Livelihoods ThroughIncreased Water Use. Harare: Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe[poster]

Kozanayi, W. 1999. Report on the demonstration at Romwe that was covered by the ZimbabweBroadcasting Corporation. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Kozanayi, W. and Mandondo, A. 2000. Community Priorities and Expectations RegardingPotential for Improved Use and Management of Catchment Resources. Institute ofEnvironmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Kwesha, D. and Mapaure, I. 2000. Vegetation Survey of Romwe and Mutangi Micro-CatchmentAreas in Chivi District, Zimbabwe. Institute of Environmental Studies, University ofZimbabwe.

Li, T.M. 1999. Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations. Developmentand Change, 27: 501-527.

Lovell, C., Campbell, B., Mandondo, A., Sayer, J. and Stevenson, K. 2001b. Achieving integratedresource management across scale. [draft policy brief]

29

Lovell, C.J., Mugabe, F.T., Moriarty, P.B. and Batchelor, C.H. 2001a. When is catchmentmanagement beneficial? A biophysical case study in a semi-arid crystalline basement area.(To be submitted to Journal of Hydrology)

Mabhachi, O. and Kozanayi, W. 2000. Soil and Water Conservation and Fertility Management inthe Mutangi and Romwe Micro-catchments: Farmer Perceptions, Practices, Priorities andProblems. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Mabhachi, O. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. The Village Boundaries of Romwe and Mutangi. Harare:Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe [unpublished report].

Mandondo, A. 1998. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject: A Team-Up Workshop Report. Institute of Environmental Studies, University ofZimbabwe.

Mandondo, A. 2000. Situating Zimbabwe’s natural resource governance systems in history. Centrefor International Forestry Research Working Paper 32. Centre for International ForestryResearch, Bogor, Indonesia.

Mandondo, A. 2001. Allocation of governmental authority in tiered governance systems: the caseof the Chivi Rural District Council landuse planning and conservation by-laws. AfricanStudies Quarterly, 5(3): (Online) URL:http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a3.htm

Mandondo, A., Campbell, B., Luckert, M., Nemarundwe, N., de Jong, W. and Kozanayi, W. 2001.Transacting institutional change in contexts of complexity: experiences from Chivi Districtin Zimbabwe. (submitted)

Mapaure, I. 1999. Vegetation Survey of Romwe and Mutangi Micro-Catchment Areas, ChiviDistrict, Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. Institute of Environmental Studies, University ofZimbabwe.

Mapfumo, P. 1999. Zimbabwe: Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property ResourcesProject. Proceedings of the First Planning Workshop Together With Catchment SelectionReport. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.

Mortimer, M. 1998. Roots in the African Dust, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Mugabe, F.T., Hodnett, M. and Senzanje, A. 2001. Comparative hydrological behaviour of two

contrasting catchments in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe [submitted].Murphree, M.W. 1991. Communities as Institutions for Resource Management. Centre for Applied

Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe.Mutamba, M., Kozanayi, W. and Campbell, B. 2000. Report on Simudzirayi Micro-Credit Scheme.

Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe.Nemarundwe, N. 2002. Institutional collaboration and shared learning for forest management in

Chivi District, Zimbabwe. In: E. Wollenberg, D. Edmunds, L. Buck, J. Fox and S. Brodt(eds). Social Learning in Community Forestry Management: Linking Concepts andPractices, pp 85-108. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.

Nemarundwe, N. 2001. Organisations for local woodland management: the case of Romwecatchment in Southern Zimbabwe. [Submitted]

Nemarundwe, N. and Kozanayi, W. 2002. Institutional arrangements for water for water resourceuse: a case study from Southern Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies.[in press]

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: Institutions for Collective Action. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Phimister, I. 1988. An Economic and Social History of Zimbabwe 1890-1948: CapitalAccumulation and Class Struggle. Longman, London.

Sayer, J. and Campbell, B. 2003. The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods andthe Global Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press)

Scoones, I., Chibudu, C., Chikura, S., Jeranyama, P., Machaka, D., Machaya, W., Mavedzenge, B.,Mombeshora, B., Mudhara, M., Mudziwo, C., Murimbarimba, F. and Zirereza, A. 1996.Hazards and Opportunities: Farming Livelihoods in Dryland Africa, Lessons From Africa.ZED Books, New Jersey.

Sithole, B. 2002. Making Sense of the Micro-Level Politics of Multi-stakeholder Groups: AMethods Manual. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research. (in press)

Sophocleous, M., Perkins, S.P., 2000. Methodology and application of combined watershed andground-water models in Kansas. Journal of Hydrology 236, 185-201.

30

Standa-Gunda, W. and Braedt, O. 2000. The sustainability of markets in forest products: the case ofwoodcrafts in Zimbabwe. International Tree Crops Journal, 10: 367-384.

Sullivan, C.S., Mutamba, M. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. Water use and livelihood security: A study ofrural households in Southern Zimbabwe. Journal of Water Policy [Submitted].

Timberlake, J.R., Nobanda, N. and Mapaure, I. 1993.Vegetation survey of the communal lands –north and west Zimbabwe. Kirkia, 14: 171-270.

Waughray, D.K., Lovell, C.J., Moriarty, P.B., Batchelor, C.H., Nangati, F., Keatinge, D., Mtetwa,G. and Dube, T. 1997. Community Resource Management and Livelihood Strategies.CRMLS – Phase 1 Report. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford.

Whitlow, J.R. 1980. Deforestation in Zimbabwe. Zambezia (Supplement), 1-35.Whitlow, J.R. and Campbell, B.M. 1989. Factors influencing erosion in Zimbabwe: a statistical

analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 29: 17-29.Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D. and Buck, L. 2000. Anticipating Change: Scenarios as a Tool for

Adaptive Forest Management. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor.World Bank, 1996. Understanding Poverty and Human Resources in Zimbabwe: Changes in the

1990s and Directions for the Future. Human Development Group, World Bank,Washington, D.C.

World Bank, 2001. World Development Report 2000/2001. Attacking Poverty. The World Bankand Oxford University Press, New York.

31

9 Project logframeR7304: Project Logical Framework – Zimbabwe Micro-Catchment Management and Common Property Resources

Narrative Summary Objectively verifiableindicators

Means of verification Importantassumptions

Super Goal (purpose of NRSP SAPS)

Benefits for poor people in targetcountries generated by application ofnew knowledge to natural resourcemanagement in semi-arid productionsystems

By 2005 evidence of theapplication of research productsto benefit target communitiesby achieving one or more of:- Sustainable production

increase- Less variable production- Productivity increase- Improved employment

(numbers, income, quality)- Improved access by poor

people to RNR output

DFID commissionedreviewsMonitoring againstbaseline data collatedby the programmeReports of in-countryinstitutionsNational statistics

Enabling environment(policies, institutions,markets, incentives)for widespreadadoption of newstrategies andpractices existsClimatic conditionsare favourable

GoalAppropriate catchment managementstrategies developed and promoted

Livelihoods of at least 10% ofthe poor improved in semi-aridcommunal areas in Zimbabweby 2005.

GO, NGO and CBOreports

Target beneficiariesadopt and usestrategiesEnabling environmentexists

PurposeNew approaches to NRM thatbenefit the poor developed andvalidated in representative micro-catchment sites in the semi-aridcommunal lands of Zimbabwe

By Dec 2001: Majorstakeholders engage with thenew knowledge generated onthe relative dependence of poorcommunities on wildlife,livestock and crops and theirinteraction and on the role ofhuman and social capital incatchment managementLocal institutions take steps tocontinue the promotion ofinstitutional and technicalchanges for the management ofCPRs and the improvement ofpeople’s livelihoods

Journal papers

Project FTR

Records and planningdocuments of CBOsand NGOs includinginformal informationsources

Communities andextension agencies areinterested and willingto adopt outputs

Outputs

1. Existing institutionalarrangements to manage common-property resources (CPRs) criticallyappraised, and innovative approachesto strengthening the capacity tomanage CPRs investigated andpromoted.

At least one approach tocommunity-based managementof CPRs developed by end ofYear 2, with an alternativeapproach being developed by theend of Year 3

PRA and other reports Concerted communityaction through localCPRM institutions areable to bring current'open access' resourcesunder communitycontrol andmanagement ascommon propertyresourcesCPRM-relevantinstitutions exist atlocal level; sufficientincentives for these tobe mobilised andstrengthened and to beeffectively integratedinto, programmes formanaging largercatchments

32

Narrative Summary Objectively verifiableindicators

Means of verification Importantassumptions

Outputs (continued)

2. Key biophysical linkagesamongst components of the micro-catchments identified, quantified, andmade accessible for CPRmanagement, and options for moreefficient and extensive use of waterresources identified and promoted inthese micro-catchments.

Integrated soil, vegetation andhydrological monitoringprogramme in place andfunctioning at Romwe by end ofYear 1 (an extension of past 5years of activity), and in newmicro-catchment by end of Year2At least two options for moreefficient and extensive use ofwater resources promoted byend of Year 3 with theinvolvement of keystakeholders, or if viableoptions not identified, projectfindings communicated to allmajor stakeholders.

Reports on themonitoring programmeReport on end-of-project key informantinterviews

Biophysical processesoperating at a micro-catchment scale aredirectly related to thefunctioning ofcatchments at a largerscale (see Activity2.1a)

3. Options for markedly improvinglivelihoods in the target micro-catchments identified and promoted

By month 4 of year 3, robustscreening of options forimproving livelihoods of peoplein the target micro-catchmentscompleted and intervention plandeveloped and implemented or,if viable options not identified,project finding communicatedto all major stakeholdersBy end of year 3, if interventionplan has moved ahead, at leasttwo options for improvinglivelihoods promoted with theinvolvement of keystakeholders

Intervention plan reportReport on end-of-project key informantinterviews

Activities Milestones

1.1 Identify and establish studyareas (Romwe plus one newcatchment) using agreed criteriabased on prior experience, localknowledge, reconnaissance surveys,and advice from key institutions

Selection criteria for the additional catchment agreed uponby end of Month 2Additional study site identified by end of Month 3

1.2 a) Identify and characteriseinternal and external institutionsinfluencing the range of CPRs andother resource management regimeswithin the study areas

b Review issues related to thescaling up of micro-catchmentmanagement to whole catchmentfunctioning (see Activity 2.1a andAssumption for Output 1)

Paper on the characteristics of local institutions and theirrelationships to the management of common property andother resources by end of Year 1.

33

Activities (continued) Milestones:1.3 a) Evaluate the capacity of localinstitutions to undertake CPRM

b) At least two options forenhancing capacity by way ofhuman resource mobilisation,training, advocacy and exposure toother CPRM initiatives, identifiedthrough literature review and surveyof expert opinion, and tested

a) Capacity of identified local institutions within the twomicro-catchments evaluated by end of Year 1b) Options for enhancing capacity identified by end ofYear 1. At least one option developed and tested by end ofYear 2; additional option tested by mid Year 3

1.4 Assess incentives for, andconstraints on, effective CPRM

Overview institutional paper, including a classification ofCPRS with an analysis of the competing uses and the currentinstitutional arrangements governing their use, by mid Year3. This paper will include the results of capacity-buildingexercises

1.5 Integrated assessment of thecircumstances under whichcatchment management may beappropriate (same activity as 2.5 &3.3)

a) Overview synthesis paper drawing on bio-physical,institutional, livelihood and economic data by end of year 3

b) Report on end-of-project key informant interviews

1.6 Develop disseminationmaterials for wider enhancement ofcapacity of local CPRM institutions(linked to activities 2.7 and 3.6)

a) Handbook on different facets of CPRM prepared by endof Year 3

b) Other dissemination options finalised by end of Year 3.

2.1a) Review literature and expertopinion to produce a synthesis ofexisting understanding of issuesassociated with scaling up of keybiophysical processes from micro-catchments to whole catchments (seeActivity 3.1a and Assumption forOutput 2)

b) Identify and select study micro-catchments using agreed biophysicalcriteria (components and keyprocesses) based on prior experience,local knowledge, reconnaissancesurveys, and advice from keyinstitutions

b) Draft review of scale-related issues in catchmentfunctioning produced by end of Month 2

Full review and synthesis of scale-related issues completedby end of Month 6

b) Selection criteria agreed upon by end of Month 2

Micro-catchments identified and selected by end of Month3

See also Milestone 1.1

2.2 Instrument micro-catchments,survey key biophysical trends, andestablish data collection programme

Monitoring instruments in place by end of Year 1Monitoring programme functioning with communityparticipation by mid Year 2

2.3 Available and new technicaloptions for improved water andmicro-catchment managementevaluated and their potential forindependent uptake and sustaineduse assessed

Review of potential technical options and their likely uptakeand impacts by Year 2; Review of options for micro-catchment management and improved water management bymid Year 3

2.4 Model and validate linkagesamong components of the micro-catchments to better understand:impacts of potential technicaloptions; improved watermanagement and hydrologicalfunctioning during dry periods (lowrainfall cycles)

Model of Romwe micro-catchment operational by end ofYear 1 and validated and revised by end of Year 2; modelextended to include new catchment by mid Year 3

34

Activities (continued) Milestones:

2.5 Integrated assessment of thecircumstances under whichcatchment management may beappropriate (same activity as 1.5 &3.3)

a) Overview synthesis paper drawing on bio-physical,institutional, livelihood and economic data by mid Year 3

b) Report on end-of-project key informant interviews2.6 Plan for a long-term micro-catchment management monitoringand demonstration facility, as acomponent of dissemination.

Joint report by government, non-government and projectimplementers on the vision and plan for the demonstrationfacilities

2.7 Develop disseminationmaterials for wider understandingwithin communities of the: keybiophysical components andprocesses involved in long-termmanagement of micro-catchments;options for improved water use andoptions for technical interventions(linked to activities 1.6 and 3.6)

a) Handbook on different facets of CPRM prepared by endof Year 3b) Other dissemination options finalised by end of Year 3

3.1 Livelihoods analysis to identifythe different groups of resourceusers and quantify their dependenceon each class of resource relative tothe other components of theirlivelihoods

a) PRA reports by end Year 1b) Paper on broad livelihood options by end of Year 3(draft ready by mid Year 3)

3.2 Analysis and evaluation of waterresources - livelihood linkages in thecontext of the farming andproduction systems of theparticipating communities, includingwater sources, users, and uses, andeconomics of improved water use

Paper on water resources -livelihood linkages and optionsfor enhancing livelihoods through more productive use ofwater resources by mid Year 3 (draft paper ready by endYear 2)

3.3 Integrated assessment of thecircumstances under whichcatchment management may beappropriate (same activity as 1.5 &2.5)

a) Overview synthesis paper drawing on bio-physical,institutional, livelihood and economic data by end of Year 3b) Report on end-of-project key informant interviews

3.4 Robust screening of options forimproving livelihoods of people inthe target micro-catchmentscompleted

Intervention plan report

3.5 At least two options forimproved livelihoods promoted or,if viable options not identified,project finding communicated to allmajor stakeholders

Results on livelihood options promoted incorporated intofinal papers on livelihood options (see 3.1 and 3.2)Report on end-of-project key informant interviews

3.6 Develop dissemination materialsfor promoting the improvement oflivelihoods and the more productiveuse of water resources (linked toactivities 1.6 and 2.7)

a) Contributions on livelihood issues made to thehandbook on different facets of CPRM completed by endof Year 3b) Other dissemination options finalised by end of Year 3.

35

Activities continued Milestones:

4.1 Draw up proposals for and agreeon future management of the micro-catchment monitoring anddemonstration facilities

Agreement on future management of the facilities securedby end of Year 2.

4.2 Develop and implement astrategy for promoting long-termmonitoring and other uses of thefacilities in the micro-catchments

Report on long-term strategy for monitoring and other usesby mid Year 3

10 Keywords

Zimbabwe, Chivi District, Common Property Resources, Livelihoods, Micro-catchmentManagement, Strategy, Communities, Target institutions

11 Annexes

Annex A. Scientific Annex – attached, see belowFrost, P.G.H., Campbell, B., Mutamba, M., Lovell, C.J., Mandondo, A., Cain, J., Kozanayi, W. and

Luckert, M. 2002. Can rural livelihoods in semi-arid regions be improved through bettermanagement of natural resources in catchments?

Annexes B-I Publications – see separate volumes

Institutional aspectsAnnex BMandondo, A., Campbell, B., Luckert, M., Nemarundwe, N., de Jong, W. and Kozanayi,

W. 2001. Transacting institutional change in contexts of complexity: experiencesfrom Chivi District in Zimbabwe

Annex CNemarundwe, N. 2001. Organisations for local woodland management: the case of Romwe

catchment in Southern ZimbabweAnnex DNemarundwe, N. 2002. Formal and informal decision-making platforms: Women’s role in

natural resource management institutions in Southern Zimbabwe.

Biophysical aspectsAnnex ELovell, C.J., Mugabe, F.T., Moriarty, P.B., Hodnett, M. and Batchelor, C.H. 2001. When is

catchment management beneficial? A biophysical case study in a semi-aridcrystalline basement area.

Annex FMugabe, F.T., Hodnett, M. and Senzanje, A. 2001. Comparative hydrological behaviour of

two contrasting catchments in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe

Integrated aspectsAnnex GCain, J., Moriarty, P.B. and Lynam, T. 2001. Designing integrated models for participatory

formulation of water management strategies [submitted].

Livelihood aspectsAnnex H

36

Campbell, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. and Zindi, C. 2002.Household Livelihoods in Semi-arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Bogor:Center for International Forestry Research. [Replaced by a published book withthis title and authorship]

Annex ISullivan, C.S., Mutamba, M. and Kozanayi, W. 2001. Water use and livelihood security: A

study of rural households in Southern Zimbabwe.

37

Annex J – Project Inventory

[List all equipment (>£500) purchased under the project, noting any changes during the quarter.]

Item Make and Model Serial No. Datereceived

Purchaseprice

Location Personresponsible for

Disposal

Safekeeping* To Date AuthorisedPhotocopier Canon NP 6216 UW33484 17/3/99 £2517 IES. Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuPin boards N/A 2/2/99 £992 IES, Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuComputer Acer Entra 9174302109 27/01/99 £1266 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuIsuzu Vehicle KB250D, 2WD

Double Cab4JA1586250 4/99 £7086 IES, Zimbabwe Prof. Feresu

Isuzu Vehicle KB250D, 2WDDouble Cab

4JA1581365 4/99 £7086 IES Zimbabwe Prof. Feresu

Computer Acer Entra 9174302109 23/12/99 £1077 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuWater Level Gauge Unidata 6541 586 19/9/99 £526 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuRadiometer NR-Lite Net 990302 19/9/99 £565 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuData Logger CR10X XE1180 19/9/99 £779 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuWater Level recorder 6541 463 19/9/99 £526 IES Zimbabwe Prof. FeresuWater LevelRecorder

6541 564 19/9/99 £526 IES Zimbabwe Prof. Feresu

Laptop Toshiba2060CDS

To besupplied

19/9/99 £1250 IES Zimbabwe Prof. Feresu

Unidata Water LevelRecorder

To beSupplied

19/9/99 £526 IES Zimbabwe Prof. Feresu

* This is a new requirement from DFID – preferably project leader or overseas counterpart

38

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Six Monthly Check: Completed By __________________

Signature __________________Date __________________

Yearly Check: Completed By __________________Signature __________________Date __________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------